Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 367 (PAT)

Raghunandan Singh v. State of Bihar

2002-03-18

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2002
JUDGMENT I.P. SINGH, J 1. All the appellants have been convicted under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. Appellant, Sagar Singh @ Ram Sagar Singh has been further convicted under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellants, Surendra Singh and Sita Ram Singh, have been further convicted under section 436 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that on 1.11.1981 in the morning the informant Babu Lal Rajwar alongwith 40-50 persons went to harvest the paddy grown on the gairmajurua land. It has been stated that all the appellants came there alongwith 100 persons. Appellants, Sagar Singh, Kameshwar Singh and Jain Singh (co-accused) were armed with guns and others were variously armed with gun, Garasha and Bomb and on the order of appellant, Raghunandan Singh the accused persons forced them to leave the paddy field It has been stated that again on the order of appellant Raghunandan Singh, appellant, Sagar Singh firea from his gun which hit on the chest of Amerik Rajwar and due to which he received injury. Thereafter the appellant Singheshwar Singh ordered the mob to set fire in the houses and upon which the appellant Surendra Singh set fire in the house of Bachu Rajwar and appellant Sitaram Singh set fire in the house of Jamunia Devi. Both the house were fully burnt. It has been further stated that with the help of same persons the injured Amerik Rajbar was taken to Nawadah Hospital where he was treated. However, other appellants had surrounded the house till the police arrived there. It has been further stated that thereafter the appellants harvest the paddy crops grown by them. Thereafter the Fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the police and on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was drawn up. After completion of the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W.1 is Amerika Rajwar. P.W. 2 is Bishwa Rajwar. After completion of the investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellants. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. 3. The appellants pleaded not guilty. 4. The prosecution in support of its case has examined altogether 11 witnesses. P.W.1 is Amerika Rajwar. P.W. 2 is Bishwa Rajwar. P.W.3 is Bachu Rajwar. P.W. 4 is Puneshwar Rajwar. P.W. 5 is Baldeo Rajbanshi who has been tendered. P.W.6 is Dukhan Rajwar. P.W.7 is Shardanand Chaube. P.W.8 is Babu Lal Rajbanshi. P.W.9 is Smt. Jamuni Devi. P.W.10 is Doctor Shaligram Singh who has examined the injured. P.W.11, Rajendra Prasad Verma is a formal witness. 5. P.W.8 the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that the appellants and others have surrounded them when they were harvested the paddy crops. He has further stated that Amerik Rajwar (P.W.1) sustained injury by gun shot fired by appellant Sagar Singh. He has further stated that on the order of Sigheshwar Singh appellant, Surendra Singh set fire in the house of Bachu and appellant Sitaram Singh set fire in the house of Jamuni Devi. He has further stated that there was dispute over this land between the parties. Both the parties were sent jail also. However, he denied to have any paper with regard to the possession of the land. According to him he was having 1 Bigha disputed land under his cultivation. The other witness Jamuni Devi (P.W.9) who claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence has stated that there was dispute over this land from before. There was murder due to this land in question in which some Harijans awarded life imprisonment. She has further stated that the parties wanted to be in possession of the land as such this occurrence took place. She has also supported the factum of setting of fire in the house of one Bachu Rajwar. 6. The other witness, Bachu Rajwar (P.W.3) has also supported the factum of setting of fire in his house and in the house of Jamuni Devi. According to him grains and clothes were also burnt. PW.1 the injured has also stated that when they were harvesting the paddy crops cultivated by them the appellants surrounded them and on the order of appellant Raghunandan Singh appellant Sagar Singh fired which hit him on the right side of chest. According to him grains and clothes were also burnt. PW.1 the injured has also stated that when they were harvesting the paddy crops cultivated by them the appellants surrounded them and on the order of appellant Raghunandan Singh appellant Sagar Singh fired which hit him on the right side of chest. He fell down after sustaining injury and was taken to Nawadah Hospital where he was treated. 7. P.W.10, the Doctor has examined the injured Amirak Rajbanshi on 1.11.1981 and found the following injuries on his persons:- Small circular, two irregular margin charred skin from 2 mm to 5 mm diamter oval right side of four head, left fore arm had three injuries one injury over right shoulder one on left breast, one on left side of abdomen, one on left thigh. According to him no pillet was recovered and nature of injury was simple caused by splinter of cracker for which it was difficult to say that it was done by any fire arms. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that only partisan and interested witnesses have been examined and no independent witness has been examined. He has further submitted that the land belonged to the appellants as they had purchased the same through registered sale deed and the appellants were in possession of the land in which they had grown the paddy crops. The I.O. who was the competent witness has not been examined and there are vital contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. The Doctor did not find injury of fire arms. He has further submitted that the injury was caused by splinters of cracker as such there is difference in the injury caused by the appellants. 9. Though it has been submitted that the land belongs to the appellants on which they had their possession but from the deposition of the witness it appears that there was dispute over the possession of the land. The informant as well as other Harijans were not having any paper to prove the claim over the possession but it appears that there was bonafide dispute regarding harvesting of paddy crops which resulted into occurrence. As far as the submission of the learned counsel that only parti san and interested witnesses have been examined it appears that all the witnesses are consistent on the manner of occurrence and their testimony is trust inspiring. As far as the submission of the learned counsel that only parti san and interested witnesses have been examined it appears that all the witnesses are consistent on the manner of occurrence and their testimony is trust inspiring. Learned counsel has vehementally submitted that the story of prosecution that the appellants set fire to the house of Bachu and Jamuni Devi with one stick of match as such it is not expected as it was month of November in which the thatched house was moistured with dew and it is not possible to catch fire so easily with only one stick of match However, only on such technical ground the case of the prosecution can not be discarded, specially when there are eye witnesses on the factum of setting of firing in the house of Bachu and Jamuni Devi. 10. From the appreciation of the evidence on record the court below has rightly came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the appellants in the aforementioned sections. 11. However, coming to the question of sentence the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1981 i.e. more than about 20 years and since then the appellants have been amply harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation. He has further submitted that there was land dispute and there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against the appellants, therefore, it requires consideration on the point of sentence. 12. Having regard to the submission raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants, I am of the view that the appellants have gone through mental and financial crisis lasting for more than about 20 years and it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of these appellants are reduced to the period they have already undergone in jail with a fine of Rs.500/- each to be deposited by the appellants within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. In default the appellants, Surendra Singh and Sita Ram Singh shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and other appellants shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. In default the appellants, Surendra Singh and Sita Ram Singh shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and other appellants shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. It is made clear that the amount of fine if and when realised by the appellants the same shall be equally distributed to Amerika Rajwar (P.W.1), Bachu Rajwar (P.W.3) and Smt. Jamuni Devi (P.W.9). 13. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed.