Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 939 (PAT)

Panchu Manjhi v. State Of Bihar

2001-10-04

B.N.P.SINGH

body2001
Judgment B.N.P.Singh, J. 1. Though the prosecution was launched at the behest of wife of the deceased Ram Briksh Manjhi (Mushar) against as many as eight persons, it seems that there being no good evidence of incriminating nature to put them trial, the police laid charge-sheet before the court, only against the appellant showing Jalai Manjhi absconding, and the trial accordingly proceeded only against the appellant who suffered conviction under Section 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years which is under challenge in this appeal. Needless to say that the trial Court did not find the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was prosecuted. 2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case was that at about 8 a.m. on 6th December, 1986 while the informant Jasia Devi was working with her husband in the paddy field of Ramesh Singh, four persons including the appellant came and dealt indiscriminate lathi blows on her husband, when he dropped to the ground, pursuant to which, another set of four persons came and dealt blows with lathi on him suspecting Ram Briksh Manjhi to be witch. The reasons assigned for the incident was that Ram Briksh Mushar was a witness in a case of arson. After the police was set in motion, at the behest of wife of the deceased, the investigation commenced, in course of which, the Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, got autopsy held on the dead body of the deceased and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the court only against the appellant showing Jalai Manjhi absconding, and appellant on committal to the Court of Sessions was eventually put on trial. 3. The defence of the appellant before this Court and also the trial Court had been the total denial of allegation and appellant ascribed false implication due to litigation persisting between the parties. The appellant, reiterated his innocence and false implication even in the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court. 3. The defence of the appellant before this Court and also the trial Court had been the total denial of allegation and appellant ascribed false implication due to litigation persisting between the parties. The appellant, reiterated his innocence and false implication even in the examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Court. The State examined altogether seven witnesses at trial and those examined include, wife of the deceased, others who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident, those who came to know about incident and also the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased, and the trial Court on appreciation of evidence placed on the record while acquitted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was charged, rendered verdict of guilt under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him in the manner stated above. 4. For proper analysis of the merit and quality of the evidence of the witnesses, it is to appreciate the testimony of individual witness. To begin with the evidence of Jasia Devi PW 3 who not only happens to be the person who set the police in motion but also the wife of the deceased claiming to have been working with her husband in the field of Ramesh Singh, one would find her reiterating her early version rendered before the police about the appellant along with others having dealt lathi blows on her husband while he was working in the paddy field for harvesting paddy crops. She would make explicit attribution against appellant Jalai Manjhi, Kailu Mushar and Sahdeo Manjhi who began to. assault her husband, and attribution against rest was that after they made query as to whether Ram Briksh Manjhi was alive, dealt blows with lathi on him. Though all attempts were made to save the life of her husband but while being carried to the hospital on a cot, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Dhanchand PW 1 was working in the field of Girja Singh and stated to have noticed appellant assaulting Ram Briksh Mushar with lathi while Jalai Manjhi had surrounded Jasia Devi and Sahdeo Manjhi and Kailu Manjhi too who held lathi with them, dealt blows on Ram Briksh Mushar. Dhanchand PW 1 was working in the field of Girja Singh and stated to have noticed appellant assaulting Ram Briksh Mushar with lathi while Jalai Manjhi had surrounded Jasia Devi and Sahdeo Manjhi and Kailu Manjhi too who held lathi with them, dealt blows on Ram Briksh Mushar. Similar accusations about assault were attributed to Ramkishun and Ram Surat Manjhi, other accusation made to Baijnath was that he made query as to whether Ram Briksh Manjhi was alive. Similar accusations were attributed to Thakur Singh and Baijnath Singh that they too exhorted the appellant to deal blows and shortly thereafter they retired from the place of occurrence, Mahadeo Manjhi PW 2 was working in the paddy field, when he noticed Panchu Manjhi, Jalai Manjhi, Sahdeo Manjhi, Ram Surat Singh, Kailu Manjhi, Baijnath Singh Thakur Singh and Ram Kishun Singh dealing lathi blows on the deceased pursuant to which they retired from the place of occurrence and while injured was being carried to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries in the midway Janki Manjhi PW 4 had gone to the field when his son came raising alarm about Ram Briksh manjhi having been liquidated and when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he noticed Panchu, Jalai, Kaillu, Ram Surat, Sahdeo, Ram Kishun, Baijnath and thakur Singh assaulting Rao Briksh Manjhi with lathi These are the witnesses who claimed to be ocular having seen the appellant and others assaulting Ram Briksh Mushar. Yet there is another set of evidence of other witnesses which too needs consideration. 5. Ramesh Singh PW 6 stated to have learnt from ladies that some persons had executed killing of Ram Briksh Musher and when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he noticed Ram Briksh Mushar dropped to the ground and when he made query from the injured, he narrated to him that appellant and 10 or 12 others had dealt lathi blows on him. Though all attempts were made to save life of the injured, but in the midway when he was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Though all attempts were made to save life of the injured, but in the midway when he was being taken to hospital, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. Sukhadi Singh PW 7 has another story to tell before the court, as he stated that while Pachu was assaulting the deceased, Jalai was standing with lathi Ram Briksh Mushar stated to have received injury and requested him to call his master, pursuant to which Ramesh Singh came to the field before whom Ram Briksh Mushar stated that Pachu had dealt lathi blows on him. This is all the evidence that has been adduced on behalf of the State. 6. Manifold submissions were advanced on behalf of the appellant to assail the finding recorded by the trial Court and it is sought to be urged that though a good number of persons were examined by the State and four of them claimed, to be the ocular witness to the incident, it would appear from tenor of their evidences, that each of them had excluded possibility of the presence of others at the material time of incident and my attention has been drawn to the testimony of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4. The contentions were raised that the litigation between the parties had been admitted in most uncertain terms, and as most of the witnesses are not found to be credible, the possibility of false implication of he appellant cannot be ruled out. The next limb of argument pressed on behalf of the appellant was that though witnesses were making positive statement before the court about the appellant and other assailants having dealt incriminating blows with lathi on the deceased, the finding recorded by the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased would belie the assertion made by the witnesses, as there was positive finding of the doctor that except one external injury, no injury was visible on the body of the deceased and as for the other injuries the doctor would state that they were impact of injury No. 1. Learned counsel appearing for the State would counter the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant trying to justify the finding recorded by the trial Court onpremises that as wife of the deceased who had witnessed assault oh her husband deserves credence and her evidence has to be accepted by the Court. Learned counsel appearing for the State would counter the submission canvassed on behalf of the appellant trying to justify the finding recorded by the trial Court onpremises that as wife of the deceased who had witnessed assault oh her husband deserves credence and her evidence has to be accepted by the Court. Though in view of the evidence of the witnesses and also the finding recorded by the doctor it is not in dispute that Ram Briksh Mushar met homicide death, the question which falls for consideration was about complicity of the appellant. 7. Now adverting to the evidence of Dhanchand PW 1 there were three assailants including the appellant, Ram Kishun and Ram Surat who were dealing blows on the deceased. This witness would admit in most uncertair terms that the place where he wx working in the field was not visible from the place where Ram Briksh Mushar sustained injuries. However, in the next breath he would state that he went to the place of occurrence when Ram Briksh Mushar sustained injury. As for the presence of the persons who witnessed the incident, this witness would State that no one was there to witness the assault made on Ram Briksh Mushar. The credibility of this witness was open to question, also for the reason that his attention was drawn to the early version which he rendered before the police claiming to be not an titular witness to the incident. Since the Investigating Officer was not examine at trial, the variations in the statement of witnesses could not be placed on the record. If the evidence of Mahadev Manjhi PW 2 was accepted to be true on its face value, Panchu, Jalai, Sahdeo, Ram Surat, Kail, Baijnath, Thakur Singh and Ram Kishun Manjhi were assaulting Ram Briksh Mushar who dealt incriminate blows for one hour on the deceased. There is no gain saying the fact that if the evidence of Dhanchand is taken into consideration there were only three assailants. There is no gain saying the fact that if the evidence of Dhanchand is taken into consideration there were only three assailants. Jasia Devi PW 3, wife of the deceased who claimed to have been working in the field, with her husband at the material time of the incident would state that only Pachu, Jalai, Kailu and Sahdeo came and begun to assault her husband and only after Baijnath, Ram Kishun, Ramsurat, Thakur Singh came and made query as to whether Ram Briksh Mushar was alive, they too dealt blows on her husband. If the evidence of Jasia Devi was accepted to be true, there was none to witness the assault and the villagers came only when the assailants had retired from the place of occurrence. Now adverting to the evidence of Janki Manjhi PW 4, there were eight assailants. However, he would admit that he could learn about assault only from a boy and to crown all, when he rushed to the place of occurrence, there was no one at the place of occurrence. The witness would state that by the time he reached place of occurrence, the deceased had marks of violence on his person and only after he reached village, that the villagers came to the place of occurrence. If the evidence of these witnesses were taken into consideration conjointly, it would appear that while Dhanchand claimed his presence at the place of occurrence at the material time of incident, the wife of deceased had excluded presence of all the persons, who reached the place of occurrence only after the assailant had retired and that is also the evidence of Janki Manjhi PW 4. Though Ramesh Singh PW 6 and Sukhri Singh PW 7 were stating about the deceased making some declaration before them that appellant had dealt blows with lathi on Ram Briksh Manjhi, no other witness claimed about such narration having been made by deceased before death, which could be treated as dying declaration. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot remain unnoticed. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter which cannot remain unnoticed. Contrary to the parrot like statement made by the witnesses, that the appellant dealt incriminating blows about hundred in numbers with lathi on the deceased, the doctor who held autopsy over the dead body of the deceased found only one external injury and it is quite unlikely that when a number of persons are assaulting a person simultaneously there would be only one injury. On this score too, the manner of occurrence, as stated by the prosecution witnesses, had not been only and sufficiently proved by cogent evidence. The Investigating Officer too was not examined at trial for which the grievance of the appellant is that he was prejudiced at trial. This fact also cannot be lost sight of that though a number of persons were prosecuted, the allegations were found untrue against seven of them, as no charge-sheet was laid before the court against them and it seems that the prosecution had not placed on the record the true account of the incident. The litigation was persisting between the parties and as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not appear to be free from blunishes false implication of the appellant was not unlikely. 9. Having given anxious and deepest consideration to the evidences placed on the record and as also the contentions raised at Bar, I am constrained to hold that the prosecution had not led cogent evidence to bring home charges against the appellant and in that view of the matter, the appellant is given benefit of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge brought against him. The appellant is accordingly acquitted of the charge and his bail bonds are also discharged. The appeal thus succeeds.