Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 603 (PAT)

Arbind Kumar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2001-07-19

S.N.PATHAK

body2001
Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the order of conviction and sentence passed by 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Session trial No. 145/1935/18/1986. The sole appellant, Arbind Kumar Singh, was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo RI for two years. 2. The prosecution case originated on the fardbeyan of Lal Mohammad with the allegations that earlier he was working for Raj Narain Singh, one of the accused. However, he was not paid proper wages and, therefore, he gave up working and then on 16.1.1980 at 12 p.m. Raj Narain Singh his son, Hansnath Singh and Arbind Singh came to his house and abused him and asked him to work for them. The informant denied to go to their form because he was not paid proper wages. Thereafter Raj Narain Singh dragged him out of his house and carried him to some distance. On the way, Arbind Kumar Singh assaulted him with knife on various parts of the body including chest and waist. When the informant fell down, his brother, Ali Mohammad, Sipahee Singh, Md. Alam came. Thereafter the accused persons fled away. The informant was carried to the hospital where he was treated by the doctor. 3. The accused-appellant denied the charges and alleged false implication. 4. The accused-appellant along with Raj Narain Singh and Hansnath Singh were charged under Section 307/34. IPC and as also under Section 341. IPC. 5. The prosecution had examined in all 8 witnesses during the course of trial and brought on record the injury report (Exhibit 1), formal FIR (Exhibit 2). fardbeyan (Exhibit 3), case diary (Exhibit 4) and seizure list (Exhibit 5). The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced before him, convicted the accused-appellant under Section 324, IPC and acquitted him for the charges under Section 307, IPC as also the charge under Section 341, IPC. However, other accused persons were acquitted for the charge under Section 307/34, IPC although they were convicted under Section 341, IPC. However, they were released on admonition. 6. I find that out of the witnesses examined PW 1 was the doctor. PW 2 was a formal witness who brought on record Exhibit 2, PW 3 was the wife of the informant, PW 4 was the informant himself, PW 5 was Md. Alam who was declared hostile. However, they were released on admonition. 6. I find that out of the witnesses examined PW 1 was the doctor. PW 2 was a formal witness who brought on record Exhibit 2, PW 3 was the wife of the informant, PW 4 was the informant himself, PW 5 was Md. Alam who was declared hostile. He had gone to the place of occurrence and he had seen the informant, Lal Mohammad, in an injured condition. PW 6 was also declared hostile and he had also seen the informant in an injured condition when he went to the place of occurrence on alarm. PW 7 was also a witness who went to the place of occurrence and found the informant in an injured condition. His attention was drawn to his purported statement before the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr PC where he had allegedly seen the appellant inflicting knife blow upon the informant, but he denied this statement PW 8 was the IO of the case. 7. So on the record, there were two witnesses i.e. PW 3 and 4 who were the witnesses of the alleged occurrence and so far other witnesses are concerned, they at least supported the case that they went to the place of occurrence. They saw the informant in an injured condition. 8. Conviction can be had even on the sole testimony of the injured and in the instant case, the testimony of the injured was supported by his wife and this was corroborated to some extent by other witnesses who said that when they went to the place of occurrence, they had found the informant in an injured condition. If the informant had refused to work for the accused Raj Narain Singh and others there is very much probability that the informant would be assaulted by the accused Raj Narain Singh and his sons. So on the record, there is nothing to discredit the evidence of the informant and his wife. Of course, doctors evidence did not support the offence under Section 307, IPC. That is the reason why the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 307, IPC. So I do not think the order of conviction for the offence under Section 324, IPC is hit by any legal infirmity or is unsustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. 9. That is the reason why the Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 307, IPC. So I do not think the order of conviction for the offence under Section 324, IPC is hit by any legal infirmity or is unsustainable on the basis of the evidence on record. 9. In the result, this appeal is dismissed and the order of conviction is affirmed. 10. So far sentence is concerned, I think one year imprisonment shall be sufficient to meet the ends of justice. So with the above modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall surrender in the lower Court to undergo the remaining period of his sentence. 11. Let a copy of this judgment be given to Dr. Anjani Pd. Singh, who appeared as amicus curiae in this appeal.