Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 10 (PAT)

Sukan Bhuiyan v. State of Bihar

2003-01-06

P.N.YADAV, S.N.JHA

body2003
Judgment S.N. JHA & P.N. YADAV, JJ.:- There are two appellants in this appeal which was preferred from jail. Appellant No. 1 Sukan Bhuiyan has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. He has separately been convicted along with appellant Jhagu Bhuiyan under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code and they have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Both the appellants have further been convicted under Sections 323/149. 342/149 and 436/149 of the Penal code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, six months and ten years respectively. They have also been convicted under Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The case of the prosecution as set out in the Fardbeyan of Bhola Singh of village Jamain. P.S. Sherghati District Gaya. is as follows. On 14.5.1992 he along with La)! 'T1i Singh, Kamta Singh and Mukhdeo Singh had gone for a round of their agricultur land in the return journey they sat near the liquor Bhathi of Kamta Singh at village Samda Tola Mahuadih. At about 76.30 P.M. about 30-35 persons came from southern side of the hill. They were armed with gun, rifle, pistol, sticks etc. They surrounded the informant and others and started assaulting Mukhdeo Singh with lathi. One of them shot from his gun at his chest. Mukhdeo Singh died, then and there. Out of fear Kamta Singh tried to run away. One of the miscreants opened fire at him. Meanwhile another person from the mob also fired which hit Kamta Singh on his chest and he fell down saying that Sukan Bhuiyan i.e. appellant no. 1 herein had shot at him. Thereafter 10-15 persons caught hold of the informant and Laxmi Singh, dragged them to the south of the hill and badly assaulted. Thereafter raising slogan "Lal Salam" they set the Bhathi on fire and left the place. After the miscreants left, on information the villagers came there and carried the injured to Sherghati Referral Hospital on a tractor for treatment. Kamta Singh died in course of treatment. 3. The informant narrated the incident before the S.I. Udyanand Paswan of Sherghati Police Station on the next day i.e. 15.5.1992 at 8.00 A.M. in the Emergency Ward 6f Magadh Medical College Hospital, Gaya which gave rise to Sherghati P.S. ase No. 68/92. Kamta Singh died in course of treatment. 3. The informant narrated the incident before the S.I. Udyanand Paswan of Sherghati Police Station on the next day i.e. 15.5.1992 at 8.00 A.M. in the Emergency Ward 6f Magadh Medical College Hospital, Gaya which gave rise to Sherghati P.S. ase No. 68/92. S.I. Udyanand Paswan prepared the inquest report and took steps for the post mortem examination. After recording the statements of the witnesses and completing other formalities he submitted chargesheet against the appellants and thus they were put on trial. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case, out of whom P.W.1 Muneshwari Paswan, P.W. 2 Arjun Mistri, P.W. 3 Rajendra Kumar Singh, P.W. 4 Arun Kumar and P.W. 8 Praveen Singh are hearsay witnesses. They stated to have reached the place of occurrence and seen the dead body of Mukhdeo and the injured there. P.W. 3 also signed as a witness on the inquest report. It may be mentioned that P.W. 4 is the son of deceased Mukhdeo Singh and P.W. 8 Praveen Singh is son of deceased Kamta Singh. Dr. Mukti Nath Singh had held autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased was examined as P.W.5 while Udyanand Paswan, the Investigating Officer, was examined as' P.W. 9. Bhola Singh, the informant, and Laxmi Singh, were examined as P.Ws. 6 and 7. 5. Sri Anil Kumar Singh appearing as Amicus Curiae for the appellants submitted that there is no evidence on the point of identification of the appellants and, therefore, they could not be convicted for committing the alleged offences. He submitted that only P.Ws. 6 and 7 claimed to have seen the ocurrence but in their evidences they did not name, the appellants despite attention of one of them PW.6 having been drawn to his previous statement. He clarified that deceased Kamta Singh had named appellant Sukan Bhuiyan before the Doctor but he did not hear Kamta Singh making such statement. In the Fardbeyan, no doubt, there is mention of the sname of appellant Sukan Bhuiyan coming from the mouth of deceased Kamta Singh but neither in the Fardbeyan nor in the evidence the informant claimed to have identified Sukan Bhuiyan or the other appellant or, indeed, any member of the mob. In the Fardbeyan, no doubt, there is mention of the sname of appellant Sukan Bhuiyan coming from the mouth of deceased Kamta Singh but neither in the Fardbeyan nor in the evidence the informant claimed to have identified Sukan Bhuiyan or the other appellant or, indeed, any member of the mob. From a reading of the Fardbeyan as well as the evidence, it is manifest that the crime was committed by a mob consisting of 30-35 persons belonging to some extremist organization, here being no evidence on the point of identification against the appellants, we are satisfied that they could not be convicted for committing the alleged offences. 6. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of the charges. Appellant No.1 Sukan Bhuiyan is in jail. He is directed to be released from custody forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Appellant No.2 Jhagu Bhuiyan is on bail. He is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.