Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 57 (PAT)

Muneshwar Ram v. State Of Bihar

2002-01-11

ASHOK KUMAR VERMA, R.N.PRASAD

body2002
Judgment R.N.Prasad, J. 1. The sole appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment and order dated 8.8.1995 passed by 2nd Additional . Session Judge, Saharsa in S.T. No. 104/92 whereby he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Panel Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. He has further been convicted for the offence under Sections 342 and 326 of the Indian Panel Code but no separate sentence has been awarded to him under the aforesaid sections. 2. Devendra Yadav is the informent. He, along with Panna Lal Das, Bahudur Yadav, Guru Kund Yadav and Mahendra Yadav went to the Police Station and gave his fardbeyan on 16.6.1991 at about 5 p.m. that at about 4 p.m. on hearing alarm he along with the aforesaid persons went near the house of the appellant situated on the embankment of the canal and saw that appellant Muneshwar Ram with Dabia and his brother Sahdeo Ram with dagger had surrounded his brother Surendra Yadav. Appellant Muneshwar Ram inflicted Dabia blow causing bleeding injury on the abdomen of his brother due to which his intestine bulged out. Due to the injuries he fell down and thereafter the appellant and Sahdeo Ram assaulted him with Dabia and dagger. His brother became senseless. On alarm people assembled and the appellant and his brother tried to run away. However, the appellant was chased and caught in which he had, also sustained some injuries. The appellant was handed over to Munga Lal Paswan and Sewa Lal Paswan, the Chukidar. His brother Sahdeo Ram, however, succeeded in running away. The villagers took the injured to Farbisganj Hospital. The occurrence was also witnessed by Deo Narain Yadav, Dukhan Yadav and Baldeo Das. The motive of the occurrence was that Bimla Kumari daughter of Debu Chaurasia and Rabindra Yadav of the village were seen coming out from Patua field. Appellant Muneshwar Ram went to the house of Bimla Kumari and assaulted her. Rabindra Yadav protested on which there was altercation. In the meantime Surendra Yadav and Rabi Nandan Yadav came at the scene and protested the action of the appellant which the offence of murder was committed. 3. On the aforesaid fardbayan, a formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up. However, the injured died on way to the hospital. Rabindra Yadav protested on which there was altercation. In the meantime Surendra Yadav and Rabi Nandan Yadav came at the scene and protested the action of the appellant which the offence of murder was committed. 3. On the aforesaid fardbayan, a formal First Information Report was drawn, investigation was taken up. However, the injured died on way to the hospital. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and his brother Sahdeo Ram. On receipt of charge-sheet, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions for trial. During the trial Sahdeo Ram absconded and as such his case split up. The trial court convicted the appellant as indicated above. 4. The defence of the appellant was that he was innocent and was falsely implicated in the case. No occurrence, as alleged by the prosecution, took place. In support of his defence first information report lodged by absconding accused, Sahdeo Yadav, i.e. Balua (Birpur) P.S. Case No. 53 of 1991 has been brought on record. 5. The prosecution in support of his case examined 13 witnesses out of whom P. W. 2, P. W. 4 and P. W. 5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P. W. 12 is informant and has also claimed to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 1 is a witness to the arrest of the appellant at the time of occurrence. P. W, 8 is Chaukidar to whom the appellant, who was caught was handed over at the spot. P. W. 3, P. W. 6, P.W. 7, P. W. 9 and P. W. 10 have been tendered. P. W. 11 is a doctor, who held postmortem over the dead body and P. W. 13 is investigating officer. 6. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16.6.1991 at 4 p.m. fardbeyan was recorded at 5 p.m. Le. after one hour of the occurrence. The appellant was chased and caught with Dabia in his hand and handed over to P.W. 8 at the spot. P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 12 is brother of the deceased and is informant of the case and is an eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant time he was at his house situated at about a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. P.W. 2, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W. 12 is brother of the deceased and is informant of the case and is an eye witness to the occurrence. His evidence is that at the relevant time he was at his house situated at about a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw that the appellant gave Dabia blow on the stomach of his brother, Surendra Yadav. He fell down on the ground. Thereafter, the appellant with Dabia and his brother, Sahdeo Ram, with dagger assaulted him and ran away towards their house. Sahdeo Ram set fire in his house. However, fire was extinguished and on chase the appellant, Muneshwar Ram, was caught and handed over to Chaukidar, Bahadur Yadav, P.W. 1; Pannalal Das, P.W. 4; Mahendra Yadav, P. W. 6; Bimala Kumari, P. W. 2; Gudkun Yadav, P. W. 5; and Dev Narayan Yadav, P. W. 7, witnessed the occurrence. Mungalal, Chaukidar also came thereafter and had seen the occurrence. Muneshwar ?. the appellant, assaulted Bimala Devi which was protested by Rabindra Yadav. There was altercation between the appellant and his brother on one side and Rabindra on other side and there was also assault with fists and slaps. Rabindra raised alarm on which his brother, the deceased, went there and protested. The appellant thereafter assaulted his brother, the deceased. His brother was taken to Forbesganj hospital on a tractor of Pannalal Das, PW 4. He, however went to the police station and gave his fardbeycan which was signed as witness by PW 4 and PW 5. The police came and inspected the place of occurrence and he proceeded to hospital but on way he learnt that his brother, Surendra, died and as such he returned to the police station with dead body of his brother. In cross examination the witness stated that when he reached place of occurrence he saw Rabindra there. At the time of occurrence his brother had no weapon in his hand. He had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm raised by Rabindra. The people, who assembled at the place of occurrence, had no weapon in their hand. The occurrence took place within two minutes and as such he could not physically protest the commission of crime. He had gone to the place of occurrence on hearing alarm raised by Rabindra. The people, who assembled at the place of occurrence, had no weapon in their hand. The occurrence took place within two minutes and as such he could not physically protest the commission of crime. The appellant had run away with Dabia in his hand. However, during the chase the appellant could not use Dabia. He also named some of the persons who extinguished the fire. He had knowledge that absconding accused Sahdeo had lodged a counter case which was found not true after investigation. Suggestion was given to the witness that Bimla and Rabindra were seen coming from Patua field and as such there was suspicion that they were involved in immoral act as such Bimla was assaulted, which the witness denied. Suggestion was also given that Mahendra, Sahdeo and Dev Narain were called by Rabindra and they assaulted the appellant, Muneshwar Ram, the absconding accused, Sahdeo Ram and his wife and set fire in their house. During the course of assault his brother accidentally sustained injury due to which he died but the witness denied the suggestion. 7. PW 2 is Bimla Devi, who is an eye witness to the occurrence from the beginning to the end and for whom the occurrence is alleged to have taken place. Her evidence is that at the relevant time after attending the call of nature she was coming out from the Patua field. The appellant and his brother, Sehdeo came. The appellant asked where she had gone. She replied that she had gone to attend the call of nature on which they started assaulting her. Rabindra Yadav came and protested the assault on which they started assaulting Rabindra. On hearing alarm Surendra Yadav, Devendra Yadav, Pannalal, Dukhan and others came and protested. The appellant gave Dabia blow causing injury on the stomach of Surendra due to which his intestine came out and he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant and Sahdeo assaulted him. The appellant himself set fire in his house which was extinguished by the villagers. Surendra was taken to hospital on a tractor. However, the appellant was caught with Dabia and was handed over to Chaukidar and Sahdeo succeeded in running away. Thereafter, the appellant and Sahdeo assaulted him. The appellant himself set fire in his house which was extinguished by the villagers. Surendra was taken to hospital on a tractor. However, the appellant was caught with Dabia and was handed over to Chaukidar and Sahdeo succeeded in running away. In cross examination the witness gave vived picture of the place of occurrence and stated that to the south of her house there was house of Sahdeo Ram. In the east there was house of Devendra. In the west there was house of Muneshwar and his brother Sahdeo. In the north there was field. The area of the field in which she had gone to attend call of nature was ten kathas. The other field was vacant. She used to go daily to attend the call of nature in the Patua field. When she was returning after call of nature, the appellant and his brother were preparing Tanti. There was no other person either in the Patua field or near about the Patua field. At the time of assault Rabindra came from south. On protest Rabindra was assaulted. On receiving injury Surendra fell down on the ground. On hearing alarm Surendra came first and thereafter other persons came. When Surendra came he was assaulted. The other persons at that very time were at some distance. Rabindra was also there. Surendra died on way to hospital. The witness denied the suggestion that she and Rabindra together came out from the field and due to the aforesaid reason the appellant and others chid her on which Rabindra and others assaulted the appellant and in course of said assault Surendra sustained accidental injury due to which he died. 8. PW 4 at the relevant time was at his house which is at a distance of 4 to 5 Laggis from the place of occurrence. On hearing alarm raised by Rabindra Yadav he came at the place occurrence, which is western embankment of canal and near the house of the appellant, Muneshwar Ram. He saw that there was assault with fists and slaps between the appellant and Rabindra Yadav, Bimla Devi, PW 2, Sahdeo Yadav, PW 9 and Surendra were also there. Surendra protested on which the appellant gave Dabia blow causing injury on his stomach. Intestine came out and he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant and his brother assaulted him. He saw that there was assault with fists and slaps between the appellant and Rabindra Yadav, Bimla Devi, PW 2, Sahdeo Yadav, PW 9 and Surendra were also there. Surendra protested on which the appellant gave Dabia blow causing injury on his stomach. Intestine came out and he fell down. Thereafter, the appellant and his brother assaulted him. The appellant and his brother ran away towards their house. The appellant set fire in his house. The fire was extinguished and on chase Muneshwar was caught. However, Sahdeo succeeded in running away. The appellant was handed over to Chaukidar, Mungalal Paswan and Sewalal Paswan. The injured Surendra Yadav was taken to Forbisganj hospital. He died on way to hospital. He, Devendra Yadav and Gudkun Yadav went to the police station where fardbeyan of Devendra Yadav was recorded. He and Gudkun Yadav signed the Jardbeyan as witness. In cross examination the witness stated that canal is between the place of occurrence and his house. Surendra was trying to prevent assault by Muneshwar by fists and slaps. The witness gave a description of Dabia and stated that it was one cubit long and four cubit wide. Devendra, PW 12, Gudkun, PW 5 and Mahendra, PW 6 were also there. The distance of the house of the appellant from the place of occurrence was 15 yards. There was no house of any person in between the place of occurrence and the house of the appellant. He had seen the appellant setting fire in his own house. Fire was extinghished within ten minutes. The appellant was caught in the field of Patua. The appellant was chased and caught with Dabia. Surendra died on way to hospital and as such he was brought to the police station. 9. PW 5 was at his house at the relevant time which is situated at a distance of 100 to 150 yards from the place of occurrence. On hearing alarm he went to the place of occurrence and saw appellant with Dabia and Sahdeo with dagger. The appellant gave Dabia blow causing injury on the stomach of Surendra and Sahdeo assaulted with Chhura. The appellant and his brother ran away towards their house and set fire in the house. However, the villagers extinguished the fire. The appellant was chased, caught and handed over to the Chaukidar. The appellant gave Dabia blow causing injury on the stomach of Surendra and Sahdeo assaulted with Chhura. The appellant and his brother ran away towards their house and set fire in the house. However, the villagers extinguished the fire. The appellant was chased, caught and handed over to the Chaukidar. He had gone to the police station and in his presence Jardbeyan of Devendra was recorded and he put his signature over it. He testified his evidence in cross examination and stated that the house of the appellant was at a distance of 1 to 1 1/2 Lagga west of the canal. He heard the alarm raised by Rabindra. He went to the police station. Surendera was taken to hospital. His statement and the statement of other witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer. 10. From the discussions of the evidence of the witnesses it appears that their evidence is consistent on all material points, i.e. with regard to place of occurrence, time of occurrence, manner of occurrence and also that the appellant was caught with Dabia on chase. Post mortem was held on 17.6.1991 at 3.30 p.m. The doctor found four injuries on the person of the deceased out of which one was on the stomach. Intestine was protruded out from the wound. Other injuries were incised in nature. The doctor opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. The injury on the stomach may be caused by Dabia/like weapon, injury nos. 1 and 2 were caused by Chhura and rest by Dabia. Injury on the stomach was caused by Dabia and was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of events. The death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock due to the injuries found on the person of the deceased. Thus, it appears that the medical evidence also corroborates the oral evidence of the witnesses with respect to time of occurrence and manner of assault. 11. PW 13 is Investigating Officer. He stated that at the relevant time Devendra Yadav the informant, PW 12; Pannalal, PW 4; Bahadur yadav, PW 1; Gudkun Yadav, PW 5; Mahendra Yadav, PW 6 and others came at the police station and he recorded the fardbeyan of Devendra Yadav in presence of the witnesses who signed on the fardbeyan. He sent the fardbeyan to register the case and started investigation. He sent the fardbeyan to register the case and started investigation. He inspected the place occurrence and has given a vivid picture of the place of occurrence. His evidence is that the place of occurrence is western embankment of the canal and to the east of the house of Debu Dhaurasia and Vinay Ram. He also gave boundry of the place of occurrence. Patua field was also near the place of occurrence from which it was alleged that Bimla Devi, PW 2 and Rabindra Yadav were seen coming out. He found blood at the place of occurrence and seized blood stained earth but due to haste he could not prepare seizure list. He also found sign of burning and seized ash but due to haste he could not prepare seizure list. He recorded the statement of the witnesses on the same day at the place of occurrence itself. Chaukidar, Mungalal Yadav, produced the appellant. He also produced blood stained Dabia. Surendra Yadav died on way to hospital and his dead body was brought to the police station on the same day at about 10.00 p.m.. He prepared inquest report and sent the dead body for post mortem report. On completion of Investigation charge sheet was submitted. In cross examination the witness stated that the houses of the witnesses were near the place of occurrence. Chaukidar was from before at the place of occurrence. From the place of occurrence the appellant was brought to the police station. In para 35 of the case diary date of arrest was wrongly mentioned as it had already been mentioned in para 30 of the case diary. He did not get blood stained earth and the Dabia examined. He investigated the case lodged by Sahdeo, an accused and brother of the appellant and submitted charge sheet under Sections 323 and 324 of the Penal Code. Thus, it appears that oral evidence of the witnesses is also corroborated by the evidence of the Investigating Officer with respect to place of occurrence and recording of fardbeyan etc. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that PW 2 did not say before the IO, PW 13, that on alarm Devendra Yadav, Pannalal and Dukhan came. She only stated that Surendra and others came. The witness did no say before him that when Surendra came the appellant Muneshwar and Sahdeo started assaulting him. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant stated that PW 2 did not say before the IO, PW 13, that on alarm Devendra Yadav, Pannalal and Dukhan came. She only stated that Surendra and others came. The witness did no say before him that when Surendra came the appellant Muneshwar and Sahdeo started assaulting him. However, he stated that witness stated about the assault and coming out of intestine from the injury. PW 4 did not say before him that he had seen occurrence of assault by fists and slaps in between Rabindra and the appellant nor he stated that the appellant assaulted the deceased with Dabia. The witness did not name the Chaukidar to whom the appellant was handed over. PW 5 did not say before him that the appellant and Sahdeo assaulted Surendra and the appellant gave Dabia blow and Sahdeo gave Chhura blow. He did not say that he was amongst the persons, who extinguished the fire and chased the appellant and handed over the appellant to Chaukidar. The learned counsel for the appellant, thus, submitted that the witnesses fried to develop the story in the court and as such their evidence is not worthy of reliance. In this regard, it would not be out of place to mention here that so far as contradictions as pointed out with respect to evidence of PWs 2 and 4 are concerned they appear to be flimsy in nature. The contraction as pointed out, in my view, would not affect the prosecution case as the witness have categorically stated with regard to occurrence of assault by the appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. So far as contradiction as pointed out with respect to the evidence of PW 5 is concerned, even if his evidence is ignored, the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 12 appear to be worthy of reliance. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to evidence of PW 12 to doubt his evidence. It is well known rule of law that to prove any fact there is no need of particular number of witnesses rather requirement is quality of evidence. Moreover, nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to evidence of PW 12 to doubt his evidence. It is well known rule of law that to prove any fact there is no need of particular number of witnesses rather requirement is quality of evidence. It has already been stated that nothing was pointed out with respect to the evidence of PW 12 and his evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 and as such I am of the opinion that prosecution has succeeded in establishing its case beyond all reasonable doubts. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Rabindra and one Chaukidar were not examined and as such their non- examination has caused prejudice to the defence case. In this regard it would not be out of place to mention here that it has already been stated that examination of particular number of witnesses is not required to prove any fact. Their non-examination would not affect the prosecution case as the prosecution has unfolded the true version of the occurrence. 14. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that the place of occurrence has not been proved. The submission of the learned counsel has no substance as the Investigating Officer has given a vivid picture of the place of occurrence and also boundary of the place of occurrence. PW 2 who was an eye witness to the occurrence from the beginning to the end has also given details of the place of occurrence and boundary of the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer has also found blood at the place of occurrence. Thus, the submission has no force at all. 15. Learned Counsel for the appellant further pointed out that neither seizure list was prepared nor inquest report or blood stained earth. Dabia was produced before the Court. In this regard Investigating Officer has categorically stated that in haste he could not prepare seizure list. Moreover, due to irregularity in the investigation, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out if the evidence of the witnesses is found to be trustworthy. It has already been concluded by the court that the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 12 is worthy of reliance. Moreover, due to irregularity in the investigation, the prosecution case cannot be thrown out if the evidence of the witnesses is found to be trustworthy. It has already been concluded by the court that the evidence of PWs 2, 4 and 12 is worthy of reliance. Furthermore, non-production as pointed out would not effect the prosecution case in view of the evidence of the witnesses which appears to be consistent and worthy of reliance. 16. Thus, on consideration, as indicated above, I find no merit is this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.