Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1739 (PAT)

Ram Pravesh Sahni v. State Of Bihar

2007-11-07

GHANSHYAM PRASAD, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2007
Judgment Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. 1. Both the above mentioned appeals have been filed by one person. Cr. Appeal No. 122 of 1988 was filed by the appellant himself whereas Cr. Appeal No. 65 of 1990 was filed on his behalf from jail. As such both the appeals have been heard together so both are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant Ram Pravesh Sahni along with four other persons, namely, Bhulan Sahni, Jamdar Sahni, Sheonath Sahni and Channa Sahni faced trial for offence under Sections 302, 148, 323 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment dated 21.1.1988 the appellant was found guilty for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Other accused persons were acquitted as the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against them. 3. The case of prosecution as noted in Ketharia P.S. Case No. 9 of 1987 has resulted on the basis of fardbeyan of PW 9 Anandi Sahni wherein he alleged that this appellant along with other accused persons committed various overt acts. Specific allegation against the appellant was that he stabbed upon informants son Sheoshankar Sahni on his chest as a result of which Sheoshankar Sahni received injury, fell down on the earth and succumbed to the injuries. According to the allegation that occurrence was seen by Kapildeo Sahni (not examined), Bharat Sahni (PW 6), Punaydeo Sahni (PW 7) and others. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against five accused persons including the appellant. The charges were framed. The defence of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated due to previous dispute with regard to some land. 4. The trial proceeded. Altogether 10 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 1 is widow of the deceased, PW 2 is Doctor Sadhofal Sah who held the postmortem. Other witnesses were PW 3 Kapildeo Sahni, PW 4 Nand Kishore Sah, PW 5 Prameshar Sahni, PW 6 Bharath Sahni, PW 7 Punyadeo Choudhary, PW 8 Raktu Sahni, PW 9 Anandi Sahni. PW 10 is M. Rahman the Investigating Officer. 5. Prosecution case is that the occurrence was witnessed by PW 3 Kapil Deo Sahni, PW 6 Bharat Sahni and PW 7 Punyadeo Chaudhary. PW 10 is M. Rahman the Investigating Officer. 5. Prosecution case is that the occurrence was witnessed by PW 3 Kapil Deo Sahni, PW 6 Bharat Sahni and PW 7 Punyadeo Chaudhary. These witnesses have been produced in the Court but they have stated nothing about the occurrence and if they were witness of the occurrence then they should have stated that they have seen the occurrence. 6. In course of evidence PW 3, PW 4, PW 5, PW 6 and PW 7 were tendered. PW 1 and PW 8 were declared hostile. Therefore, the solitary evidence of the informant remained on the record. 7. Now the evidence of informant is to be scrutinized. He has stated that the appellant has stabbed his son to death. Informant in his evidence as stated that there was some quarrel between some boys earlier. He further stated that at the place of occurrence Gorakh Sahni, Sahdeo Sahni, Bhagirath Sahni were present. Fardbeyan of the informant was noted by R.K. Oraon on which PW 10 signed. He has stated that fardbeyan was narrated to the informant and when he found true then he signed. It has been pointed out by the defence that the informant has given complete go by to allegation against the appellant as the informant has named a number of persons in his fardbeyan but those witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and there is no explanation as to why they have not supported the case. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the witnesses named in the FIR were also withheld. In that background it has been submitted that the evidence of the informant becomes doubtful and not reliable. The evidence of I.O. and the informant are contradictory to each other. 8. The witnesses named by the informant in his fardbeyan which was recorded in presence of PW 10 has not supported the prosecution case. Other persons were named as witnesses to the occurrence by the informant PW 9, namely, Gorakh Sahni and others have also not been examined and there is no explanation as to why those who are the eye-witness were withheld by he prosecution. 9. The widow of the deceased has not supported the case of the informant PW 9. Other persons were named as witnesses to the occurrence by the informant PW 9, namely, Gorakh Sahni and others have also not been examined and there is no explanation as to why those who are the eye-witness were withheld by he prosecution. 9. The widow of the deceased has not supported the case of the informant PW 9. Therefore, the evidence of PW 9 has not been supported by any other circumstances and there is no explanation for that. The doctor has examined and stated that the death was on account of injury caused by sharp cutting weapon. 10. No doubt, the conviction can be based on solitary evidence of a person and number of witnesses are not to be counted rather quality of evidence has to be looked into. If one witness supports the case in its entirety and his evidence appears to be genuine and trustworthy then there is no hindrance in passing order of conviction by placing reliance upon the solitary evidence of only witness. But prior to that some controls have to be applied and that control is that such evidence must remains intact. If the evidence of solitary witness is not intact then it has been said in a number of judgments that on the basis of such evidence no order of conviction can be passed. 11. In view of the evidences discussed above it is clear that the widow of the deceased has not supported about the appellants role. Other witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence have also not been examined and their non-explanation has remained unexplained. They were the best witnesses to have stated about the truthfulness of the occurrence. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and also that important witnesses have not been examined and they have deliberately been withheld. This submission of the appellant finds support from the non support of the case by the widow of the deceased and also due to non-examination of the witnesses who were present at the time of occurrence. This creates doubt in the prosecution case. 12. Once a doubt is created then it is incumbent that the accused is entitled to be held not guilty. The benefit of doubt can go in his favour. Accordingly, I find that the judgment pronounced by the Court below is not correct and is fit to be set aside. This creates doubt in the prosecution case. 12. Once a doubt is created then it is incumbent that the accused is entitled to be held not guilty. The benefit of doubt can go in his favour. Accordingly, I find that the judgment pronounced by the Court below is not correct and is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is set aside and this appeal is allowed. The appellant is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Ghanshyam Prasad, J. 13 I agree.