Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 235 (PAT)

Surendra Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-02

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2007
Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years underSection 452 IPC and R.I. for six months under Section 323 IPC. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, as disclosed from the fardbeyan of the informant, is that in the night of 21.4.85. the informant was sleeping at his house along with the members of his family. He heard the alarm raised by the ladies of the house. The informant woke up after hearing the alarm raised by the ladies of the house. It has been submitted that the mother of the informant, Roshna Devi was sleeping at Waranda and one miscreant assaulted her and she cried out and, thereafter, she became unconscious. The informant was having a torch in his hand at that time. He flashed his torch and saw that there were four miscreants who had entered his house. It has been submitted that he identified among them accused Surendra Singh in the light of his torch who was the resident of the village of informant. He could not identify the other three miscreants who had accompanied the accused Surendra Singh. The informant and his uncle Ram Nath Manjhi chased the criminals but they ran away, and thus, they could not be apprehended. It has been submitted that when the alleged miscreants were running away, the informant used to flash his torch, and, thus, he fully identified the accused Surendra Singh among the four miscreants who were running away from the house of the informant. It has further been stated that the brother of the informant had sent about 1,000.00 rupees through money order to the informant. It has been alleged that the accused Surendra along with other three unknown miscreants had come to the house of informant with a view to steal the money but the members of the family of informant woke up and the alleged miscreants could not commit theft of the money and they assaulted the mother of the informant with lathi and fled away. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the S.I. Bhagwan Bazar Police Station within the district of Saran on 22.4.85 at about 2 p.m. jn the Sadar Hospital at Chapra where mother of the informant was admitted for her treatment. 3. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the S.I. Bhagwan Bazar Police Station within the district of Saran on 22.4.85 at about 2 p.m. jn the Sadar Hospital at Chapra where mother of the informant was admitted for her treatment. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was instituted and after completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The appellant pleaded not guilty and has stated that he has falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity. 5. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether seven witnesses. 6. P.W. 1 is Kamla Manjhi, the informant of this case. P.W. 2 is Indrajeet Manjhi, son of the informant, P.W. 3 is Roshna Devi, mother of the informant, injured, P.W. 4 is Binda Devi, wife of brother of the informant, P.W. 5 is Shanti Devi, wife of the informant, P.W. 6 is Dr. VirVijay Singh who had examined the injured Roshna Devi and P.W. 7 is Krishna Deo Misir, the Investigating Officer of this case. 7. P.W.1 the informant Kamla Manjhi has fully supported the case of prosecution as stated in his fardbeyan. According to him on the date of occurrence at about 9 P.M. he was sleeping at the Darbaza of his house. The inmates of his house raised alarm from inside the house and he went towards his house. He flashed torch light and saw four persons, had entered his house. He stated that he identified among them the accused Surendra Singh. According to him, his mother had sustained injuries on her head by lathi and she was unconscious. According to him, the accused Surendra Singh had lathi in his hand. He has further stated that he and his uncle Ramnath chased the miscreant but they could not be apprehended as they fled away. Thereafter he took his mother to Chapra Sadar Hospital where she was admitted for her treatment. His statement was recorded in the hospital and he put his signature over it which was marked as Ext.1. According to him, her mother remained in hospital for about 20 days. Thereafter he took his mother to Chapra Sadar Hospital where she was admitted for her treatment. His statement was recorded in the hospital and he put his signature over it which was marked as Ext.1. According to him, her mother remained in hospital for about 20 days. In his cross-examination he also stated that at the time of occurrence the accused Surendra Singh was having a lathi in his hand and the other miscreants were empty handed and he identified the accused in torch light. In his cross-examination he has also stated that there was no prior enmity with the accused. The accused had got his land near his house. 8. P.W. 2 is Indrajeet Manjhi, son of the informant. He has also supported the case of prosecution. According to him at the time of occurrence he was sleeping in the Sehari land of his house on a cot. Hearing the hulla and shouts of the ladies coming from inside the house he woke up and ran towards his house. He saw his grand-mother had fallen down having sustained injuries on her person. He has further stated that he saw four miscreants running away from his house. He identified among them accused Surendra Singh. He has stated that his father had flashed the torch light at that time and he saw the miscreants fleeing away in the torch light of his father. According to him, the accused Surendra Singh was known from before as he was the resident of his village. He has also stated that no lantern or Dhibari was burning at the place where his grand mother was sleeping and there was darkness in the night of occurrence. He further stated that he had no prior enmity with the accused Surendra Singh. He has also stated that his grand mother was taken to Chapra Sadar Hospital and she remained there 10-15 days. 9. P.W. 3 Roshna Devi, mother of the informant, injured has stated that she was sleeping in the Marat of her house at the time of occurrence. She woke up when accused Surendra Singh was demanding the key of the box. She raised alarm and saw the accused Surendra Singh having with lathi. She stated that the accused had taken away Rs. 2.000/- which was wrapped in a cloth in her Anchal of her Saree. She woke up when accused Surendra Singh was demanding the key of the box. She raised alarm and saw the accused Surendra Singh having with lathi. She stated that the accused had taken away Rs. 2.000/- which was wrapped in a cloth in her Anchal of her Saree. According to her, she saw four miscreants and identified only accused Surendra Singh. She also stated that she was brought at Chapra Sadar Hospital where she was admitted for her treatment. She remained admitted in the hospital for about 15 days. She has stated that the accused Surendra Singh assaulted her with lathi on her head but in her cross-examination also she disclosed that she had sustained injuries on her person and denied the suggestion that she falsely implicated the accused Surendra Singh. 10. P.W. 4 Binda Devi and P.W. 5 Shanti Devi have supported the case of prosecution and have stated that they were sleeping in their house and on the cries of her mother-in- law they woke up and saw four miscreants had entered into their house. They identified among them accused Surendra Singh. 11. P.W. 6 is Dr. Vir Vijay Singh who has examined the injured Roshna Devi on 22.4.85 in the Sadar hospital, Chapra and found the following injuries on her person :- 1. Echomosis with swelling, having radish colour, on the right mastod of the size 4" x 2 1/2". 2. One bruise on the right ear, upper portion, of the size 1/4" x 1/4". In the opinion of doctor both the injuries were simple in nature and were caused by hard blunt substance. The injury report were x-rayed and marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 2/1. 12 P.W. 7 is Krishna Deo Misir who is the I.O. of this case. According to him, he investigated the case and submitted charge sheet. He has proved fardbeyan of the informant Ext. 3. He also proved the formal F.I.R. of the case Ext. 4. According to him, he inspected the place of occurrence and has given the full description of the place of occurrence. He has stated that he has also recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not find blood stain on the place of occurrence. He has also stated that nothing was stolen by the accused persons. 13. He has stated that he has also recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not find blood stain on the place of occurrence. He has also stated that nothing was stolen by the accused persons. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only relation of the informant had been examined and no independent witnesses were examined. The submission of learned counsel that only members of the family have been examined and no independent witnesses have been examined but no witnesses other than the inmates of the house are expected to witness the occurrence in the night as such they are the competent and they are natural witnesses. Only because they were relatives of informant their testimony cannot be discarded. It has further been submitted that the two charge sheet named witnesses have not been examined and reason for which has not been explained by the prosecution. It is true that prosecution could not examine them even though they were material witnesses but only on this ground also, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved as there were other five witnesses who have consistently supported the case of prosecution. There is no established enmity between appellant and informant to show that the appellant has falsely been implicated. 14. The learned Court below on appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses came to the conclusion that the appellant trespassed Into the house of informant and assaulted his mother RW. 3 causing injuries to her. The learned Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 453 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. Coming to the question of sentence learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1985 i.e. 22 years ago and the appellant has already been harassed and punished during the prolong litigation and he is first offender and bread earner of the family and has remained in jail for few days also, as such lenient view may be taken while awarding sentence to the appellant. 16. Considering the submission aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him in jail and it is ordered accordingly. 17. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.