Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 49 (PAT)

Karu Alias Suresh Singh & Ors v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-13

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2004
Judgment INDU PRABHA SINGH, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment, 2. Since appellant Dular Singh has died during the pendency of the appeal, as reported by the Superintendent of Police, Nawadah vide his Memo No. 2782 C/R, dated 20.10.2003, his appeal stands abated. 3. Appellants, Naresh Singh, Indradeo Singh, Kapildeo Singh, Suresh Singh and Indu Singh have been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Appellants Ramdeo Singh,Bhushan Singh and Bullu Singh have been convicted under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months, remaining appellants, namely, Paras Singh, Dular Singh, Satyendra Singh, Dinesh Singh and Surendra Singh have been convicted under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, they have been also directed to execute bond, of Rs. 2000/- with two sureties of the like amount each to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of two years from the date of the judgment and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 4. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 3.4. l984 at about noon one Bhola Singh, the informant went to Math Bagi Kita of his village, namely, Sakarpura, P.S.Akbarpur and saw that the appellants Naresh Singh, Kapildeo Singh, Indradeo Singh and Surendra Singh, armed with garasa,Karu Singh alias Suresh Singh, armed with gun, Paras Singh, and Indu Singh armed with saif Bullu Singh, Bhushan Singh, Satyendra Singh, Ramdeo Singh and Dinesh Singh armed with lathis were abusing Suresh Singh and Rajendra Singh and were asking as to why they were not giving contribution to them in connection with the murder case of Jain Singh of village Mannar it has been alleged that on protest, Indu Singh assaulted Suresh Singh on his right shoulder and neck with saif with intention to kill him. Appellant Suresh Singh assaulted Rajendra Singh with garasa on his head and appellants Bullu Singh and Bhushan Singh assaulted Rajendra Singh with lathi on back and both hands. It has been further stated that when Rajendra Singh ran to save, appellants Kapildeo Singh, Naresh Singh and Indradeo Singh assaulted him with garasa and Ramdeo Singh and Dular Singh assaulted him with lathis. It has been further stated that when Rajendra Singh ran to save, appellants Kapildeo Singh, Naresh Singh and Indradeo Singh assaulted him with garasa and Ramdeo Singh and Dular Singh assaulted him with lathis. It has been alleged that the appellant Karu Singh fired shot several times from his gun. It has been stated that the occurrence has been witnessed by Munna Singh, Bhola Singh, Govind Singh, Sidheshwar Singh and other villagers who were assembled there. It has been also stated that all the appellants armed with garasa, gun, saif and lathis had common intention to cause such bodily injuries which might result into death of the injured. 5. Thereafter, fardbeyan of Bhola Singh, the informant was recorded on 3.4.1984 at 7.30 p.m. at Sadar Hospital, Nawadah by Sub-Inspector of Akbarpur police station. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the FIR was registered and after investigation chargesheet was submitted. Ultimately, the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellants pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case. 6. The prosecution, in support of its case examined altogether eight (8) witnesses PW 1 is Bhola Singh s/o Natho Singh, who is the eye-witness of the occurrence. PW 2, is Munna Singh, PW 3 is Govind Singh, PW 4 is Bhola Singh s/o Dukhi Singh, the informant of the case and also injured in the case, PW 5 is Suresh Singh, he is also injured. PW 6 is Rajedra Singh, he has also sustained injuries, PW 7, is Tirveni Ram, he is the Sub-Inspector of Akbarpur Police Station and has investigated the case, PW 8 is Dr. Jwala Prasad,Civil Assistant Surgeon of the Sadar Hospital, Nawadah. He had examined the injured prosecution witnesses 4, 5 and 6. 7. The informant, Bhola Singh has fully supported the prosecution story as stated in his fardbeyan. Other witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have also supported the version of the informant as in the fardbeyan. I.O. (PW 7) has also supported the prosecution story. PW 8 the CAS, the medical expert Dr. Jwala Prasad, who examined the injured has also supported the prosecution version and found injuries on persons of injured. 8. Other witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 have also supported the version of the informant as in the fardbeyan. I.O. (PW 7) has also supported the prosecution story. PW 8 the CAS, the medical expert Dr. Jwala Prasad, who examined the injured has also supported the prosecution version and found injuries on persons of injured. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (in short the Act) under Sections 360 and 361 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (In short the Code) has not been given to the appellants and no reason has been assigned for denying this benefit to the appellants. It has been also submitted that under the aforesaid provision, it is mandatory for the Court to give reasons for denying these benefits to the appellants. He has relied on the decision in the case of Retalal Prithviraj Bafna and others v. Purushottam Krishnaji Kano and others, AIR 1979 SC 1290 , Ayodhya Rai and another v. The State of Bihar, 1990 (2) PLJR 611 and Sheo Kumar Singh and others v. The State of Bihar,1989 PLJR 304. In these decisions, applicability of the provisions under Section 360 of the Code has been discussed and dealt with in detail. 9. In the aforesaid decisions, the provision of Section 360 of the Code was elaborately discussed and held that a person not under 21 years of age, if convicted of the offence for which punishment is less than seven years or with fine only and the person has not previous conviction and if it appears to the Court in the facts and circumstances of the case that it was expedient that the offender instead of sentencing him may be released on probation of good conduct, will be directed to be released on entering into a bond for keeping good behaviour with or without sureties and to appeal" and receive sentence when called upon during the period not exceeding three years. It has been further held that for denying the privilege under this section the Court has to record in its judgment the specific reasons under the Act, which has not been considered in respect of all the appellants and even reasons for denying this benefit has not been recorded. It has been further held that for denying the privilege under this section the Court has to record in its judgment the specific reasons under the Act, which has not been considered in respect of all the appellants and even reasons for denying this benefit has not been recorded. So far the direction to execute bond of Rs.2,000/- to keep peace and good behaviour against appellants Paras Singh, Satyendra Singh, Dinesh Singh and Surendra Singh is concerned, no useful purpose will be served to ask them to execute bond after such a long time i.e. after 8 years. As such, this direction of the learned Court below is also set aside. 10. In view of the aforesaid, judgment under challenge suffers from irregularities and the same cannot be allowed to sustain. Accordingly, the order of conviction and sentence by the Court below against the appellants is set aside and they are acquitted. In the result, both the appeals are allowed.