Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 329 (PAT)

Bhola Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2004-03-22

INDU PRABHA SINGH, P.N.YADAV

body2004
Judgment I.P.Singh and P.N.Yadav JJ. 1. The sole appellant Bhola Mandal has-been convicted for life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that one Daya Nand Mandal used to cultivate 10-12 Bighas of lands of Tarkeshwar Singh for which appellant Bhola Mandal had got agreement of sale executed in his name. One Bindeshwari Mandal was also trying to purchase the same land. It has been alleged that the accused (Daya Nand Mandal), who died during trial had, enmity with him which caused bitterness between the men of Daya Nand Mandal and Bindeshwari Mandal. The uncle of the informant Jawahar Mandal wanted to solve the dispute amicably. It appears that on 19.11.1994 at about 1.30 p.m. the said Jawahar Mandal, uncle of the informant was going to village Dhonora in connection with sell and purchase of grain. When he was crossing through Bungalow of appellant Daya Nand Mandal, Bhola Mandal and Sudhir Kumar Singh (who is not facing trial at present) were also present there. It has been stated that the deceased Jawahar Mandal was a social man and he went to Bungalow of Daya Nand Mandal and asked him not to indulge in groupism for land of another person and he being a social worker also advised him to settle the dispute amicably and advised him to let the lands be purchased by the person who wanted to purchase the same. But after hearing his advice, Daya Nand Mandal became angry and started abusing him saying that he is the dallal of Bindeshwari Mandal, It has been alleged that all the three persons who were present at the Bungalow took out pistol and fired at Jawahar Mandal. It is alleged that the firing made by Bhola Mandal and Daya Nand Mandal hit the chest of the deceased (Jawahar Mandal) as a result of which he felled down and died instantaneously at the spot. On hearing the sound of firing Arjun Mandal, another uncle of informant came there and he was also shot by Daya Nand Mandal. This occurrence was seen by Niranjan Mandal and Permanand Mandal, Anil Mandal and Sarjug Mandal. Many other villagers also came and saw the occurrence. On hearing the sound of firing Arjun Mandal, another uncle of informant came there and he was also shot by Daya Nand Mandal. This occurrence was seen by Niranjan Mandal and Permanand Mandal, Anil Mandal and Sarjug Mandal. Many other villagers also came and saw the occurrence. However, when the accused saw them, they fled away. On the basis of the fardbey an (Exhibit-4) of the informant, an FIR (Exhibit-5) was lodged at Kahalgaon Police Station. The Police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against, the accused persons. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. Ultimately, trial concluded with the result indicated as stated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and submitted that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 3. The prosecution in support of its case altogether examined 12 witnesses, PW 1 is Om Prakash Mandal, PW 2 is Bindeshwari Mandal, PW 3 is Anil Mandal, PW 4 is Narendra Singh, who has been declared hostile, PW 5 is Permanand Mandal, who has also been declared hostile, PW 6 is Pramod Mandal, PW 7 is Niranjan Mandal, PW 8 is Sarjug Mandal, father of the informant, PW 9 is Suresh Mandal. He is the informant of this case. PW 10 is the medical expert Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat, PW 11 is Kumar who has proved some witnesses. PW 12 is Girish Kumar Ambastha, who is investigating officer of this case. 4. PW 9 Suresh Mandal, informant of this case has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in his fardbeyan. According to him, there was some dispute relating to land to Laxmipur. He has stated that on hearing hulla he went to the house of Daya Nand Mandal where he found the dead body of Jawahar Mandal. He has stated that Daya Nand Mandal had fired at Arjun Mandal. His fardbeyan was recorded, by the Police (Exhibit 4), PW 8 Sarjug Mandal is the FIR named witness. According to him, when he went to the Bungalow of Daya Nand Mandal he saw quarrel between the appellant Bhola Mandal, Parmanand Mandal, Niranjan Mandal and Jawahar Mandal. According to him, Daya Nand Mandal and Bhola Mandal shot at Jawahar Mandal as a result of which Jawahar Mandal died at the spot. According to him, when he went to the Bungalow of Daya Nand Mandal he saw quarrel between the appellant Bhola Mandal, Parmanand Mandal, Niranjan Mandal and Jawahar Mandal. According to him, Daya Nand Mandal and Bhola Mandal shot at Jawahar Mandal as a result of which Jawahar Mandal died at the spot. He has also stated that when the uncle of the informant Arun Mandal came there, accused Bhola Mandal also shot at him. PW 1 is Om Prakash Mandal. He has also supported the version of the informant (PW 9). According to him, he was near the door of Daya Nand Mandal when Jawahar Mandal was persuading Daya Nand Mandal to settle the matter through panchayati and not to quarrel, upon which he became angry and Daya Nand Mandal, Bhola Mandal and Suhdir Kumar Mandal fired from their pistols on Jawahar Mandal who dies on the spot. He has also stated that firing caused by Daya Nand Mandal and Bhola Mandal hit the chest of Jawahar Mandal. PW 2 Bindeshwari Mandal has also supported the case of the prosecution. According to him, the deceased Jawahar Mandal when reached near the house of Daya Nand Mandal and started taking him about the settlement of the land, all the three accused persons became angry and fired their pistol at Jawahar Mandal. He has further stated that the appellant Bhola Mandal. fired at Jawahar Mandal which hit his chest causing his death. Thereafter, having heard the sound of firing, Arjun Mandal came and he was also shot at by Daya Nand Mandal. When the witnesses and villagers came, the filed away. He has further stated that he requested the deceased Jawahar Mandal to decide the matter and for this Jawahar Mandal had gone to the house of Daya Nand Mandal for holding panchayati. PW 3 Anil Mandal who is also the FIR named witness has fully supported the version of the informant. According to him, he was working in the field when he saw that Jawahar Mandal went near the door of Daya Nand Mandal, who called him as dallal. He has also stated that Jawahar Mandal had come to settle the matter by holding panchayati but. as the accused persons did not agree to the same, they became angry and Daya Nand Mandal and Bhola Mandal fired at his chest which hit him and the died consequently. He has also stated that Jawahar Mandal had come to settle the matter by holding panchayati but. as the accused persons did not agree to the same, they became angry and Daya Nand Mandal and Bhola Mandal fired at his chest which hit him and the died consequently. Thereafter Arjun Mandal also came after hearing the sound of firing who was also shot at Daya Nand Mandal, PW 10. 5. Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat is the medical expert. He conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jawahar Mandal on 20.11.1994 at 11 a.m. and found following injuries : I. fire arm wounds of entry of chest left side with tatooing around margin inverted 1-1/2" x 1" in dimension of 2-1/2" above and lateral of left nipple. II. wound of exit right side of chest well lateral side margin inverted 1.5 cm. in diametre. Both the wounds were communicating. III. fire arm wounds of entry inner side of right arm. IV. wound of exit on outer side or right arm. Both wounds were communicating. V. fire arm wound of entry 1-1/4" x 1" of right side chest wall 1, above right nipple margin inverted tatooing around it. VI. wound of exit 1 cm. diameter margin inverted 1" left and below left nipple. These injuries were also ante-mortem, caused by fire-arm. These injuries were also caused within 24 hours of the examination. He has also proved the postmortem reports prepared by him (Exhibits 3 and 3/1). On the same day, he also held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Arjun Mandal and found following ante-mortem injuries on his person : 2" left of left nipple margin inverted tatooing around it, 1.5 cm. in diametre. He has also noted wound of exit on back 2 cm. in diameter in margin inverted below, right scapular inferior angle. According to him, both the wounds were communicating and projectile traversed through one of entry through fifth inter costal spasce left lungs, heart, right lungs posteriorly through chest wall posteriorly and out through wound of exit he has also found blood in the chest cavity. According to him, injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire arm. Death occurred within 24 hours of examination. He has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibits 3 and 3/1). 6. PW 13 is Sri Girish Kumar Ambastha, the Investigating Officer. According to him, injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by fire arm. Death occurred within 24 hours of examination. He has proved the post-mortem report (Exhibits 3 and 3/1). 6. PW 13 is Sri Girish Kumar Ambastha, the Investigating Officer. According to him, on 19.11.1994 he was informed on telephone about the murder in Chai Tola Kathpura. He visited the place of occurrence and recorded fardbeyan (Exhibit 4) of the informant and on the basis of the same an FIR was registered. He has given full description of the place of occurrence. He also found blood marks on the wall and door of the room. According to him, the dead bodies of Arjun Mandal and Jawahar Mandal were found on kachcha land. He prepared the inquest report of both the deceased (Exhibits 6 and 6/1) and also seized the blood stained earth for which the seizure list was also prepared and he then re-examined the informant and also recorded the statements of other witnesses. According to him, he got the port mortem report and supervision note and then handed over the investigation of this case to Mundrika Singh, officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he got the information of the occurrence by some unknown person and acting on that he entered Sanha Entry No. 465 dated 19.11.1994. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that PW 8 is not the reliable witness as he had stated that the appellant Bhola Mandal fired at Arjun Mandal which is not the case of the prosecution. It has been further submitted that PW 9, the informant is a hearsay witness and he has not seen the actual firing on the deceased persons. It has been further submitted that there are contradiction in the depositions of PWs 2 and 3 PW 2 has stated that he was following behind the deceased Jawahar Mandal, whereas PW 3 has stated that the deceased was going alone towards the place of occurrence. As such PWs 2 and 3 have also not seen the said firing. Learned counsel has also submitted that PW 3 has not seen the said firing by Sudhir Mandal (coaccused). As such, these witnesses are not liable and trustworthy. Since their testimony is not sustained corroboration, as such they should not be reliable. As such PWs 2 and 3 have also not seen the said firing. Learned counsel has also submitted that PW 3 has not seen the said firing by Sudhir Mandal (coaccused). As such, these witnesses are not liable and trustworthy. Since their testimony is not sustained corroboration, as such they should not be reliable. The conviction and sentence passed by upon the evidence is fit to be set aside. 8. In this case, the occurrence took place in broad day light. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of PW 8 (Sarju Mandal) is not reliable and of relevance as appellant Bhola fired his pistol at Arjun Mandal but PWs 8 and 9 have also stated that Dinesh Mandal and Bhola Mandal fired their pistol on the deceased Jawahar Mandal (another deceased). The medical evidence also shows that one of the shots hit the chest and other shot hit the right are both the shots which caused by entry and exit wounds causing bleeding and immediate death of Jawahar Mandal. It is likely that PW 8 was purturbed having seen the death of Jawahar Mandal and their might be some assembly obstructing his vision as well his statement establishes that this appellant fired his pistol at Jawahar Mandal which caused injury to the deceased and he subsequently died. There is nothing to discrediting his testimony. So far the other submissions of the learned counsel relating to position of movement of PWs 2 and 3 are concerned that the PW 2 was following the deceased and PW 3 has stated that he was going alone but these contradiction of position of movement is minor which cannot affect the case of the prosecution. The testimony of these witnesses has to be considered in totality. There is no dispute that they were all near the deceased at the time of firing around the place of occurrence and saw the fire shots by the appellants. The I.O. interrogated all these witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 3 on the same day of occurrence in course of investigation. There is no dispute that they were all near the deceased at the time of firing around the place of occurrence and saw the fire shots by the appellants. The I.O. interrogated all these witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 3 on the same day of occurrence in course of investigation. As such, the deposition of these witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 fully establishes that this appellants Bhola fired his pistol on the deceased Jawahar Mandal and he died on the spot, The medical expert also has supported the prosecution case as the PW 10 found fire arm injury on the dead body the deceased Jawahar Mandal. I.O. also found dead body of deceased near Bungalow of Daya Nahd Mandal. As such, the prosecution has proved it case beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, conviction and sentence passed by the Court below is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.