Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 810 (PAT)

Suchit Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-04-20

SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, SUBASH CHANDRA JHA

body2007
Judgment Shiva Kirti Singh and Subash Chandra Jha JJ. 1. The sole appellant, Suchit Kumar Singh, who faced trial along with three others namely, Chando Bind, Arjun Singh, and Ram Deep Singh, who were acquitted, has preferred this appeal, against the order of conviction dated 27.5.2006 and imposition of sentence dated 28.5.2002, passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, Third Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 164/1991/12/1993, wherein he has been held guilty and convicted for offence under Sec.302 IPC as also under Sec.27 of the Arms Act, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Sec.302 I.P.C. as also imposed fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default of it to undergo Rl for six months; for setting aside the aforesaid impugned order of conviction and sentence. 2. No separate sentence has been awarded for offence under Sec.27 of the Arms Act. 3. The facts ultimately leading to the aforesaid conviction and imposition of sentence, as per statement of Rajo Mahto, PW-3, whose fardbeyan was recorded by SI of Police on 17.3.1988, at 1300 hours at Malhipur Bindtoli PS, Barauni, District, Barauni, is that he was engaged in harvesting of standing wheat crops, right from the morning, in the aforesaid field. At about 9:00 A.M. on the said date, accused persons namely, Suchit Singh (the sole appellant) along with his brother, Chunchun Singh and others namely, Chando Bind, Lango Bind armed with pistol came and questioned cutting of crops by Nand Lal Mahton. Nand Lal Mahton in reply claimed land as his own being harvested by him and thereafter both Suchit Singh and Chunchun Singh assaulted him by butt of the pistol followed by shooting by the pistol as a result of which Nand Lal Mahton sustained injuries, fell down and ultimately died at the spot. 4. Genesis of the occurrence is land dispute between Zameedar and Bataidar. The informant claims to be one of the Bataidars along with the deceased and others, who are said to be engaged in the process of harvesting wheat crops at the relevant time but rushed in there to see the occurrence. It has also been stated that Zameendar, Ram Deep Singh and Arjun Singh had deployed their lathaits to commit the crime. 5. On the basis of recording of fardbeyan, formal FIR as Barauni PS. It has also been stated that Zameendar, Ram Deep Singh and Arjun Singh had deployed their lathaits to commit the crime. 5. On the basis of recording of fardbeyan, formal FIR as Barauni PS. Case No. 52/1988 under Sec.302/32, 120B of the IPC was drawn, investigation was taken up, on ultimately submission of charge sheet against them, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions but before commencement of trial, it was brought to the notice of the court that accused, Lango Bind and Chunchun Singh had died. Charges under Sections 302/34, 120B of the IPC as also under Sec.109 IPC were framed against Arjun Singh, Ram Deep Singh, charges under Sec.302/34 and 120B IPC were framed against Suchit Singh and Chando Bind. Appellant, Suchit Singh was further charged under Sec.302 IPC and 27 of the Arms Act. 6. In course of trial, altogether six witnesses for the prosecution were examined to support prosecution version. PW-3, Rajo Mahton, is the informant, who has corroborated his fard-beyan in his deposition recorded in the trial court. As per his deposition, on the relevant day at about 6:00 in the morning, he had been engaged in cutting of his wheat crops. The deceased, Nand Lal Mahton was also engaged in the said process of harvesting crops by the side of his field meanwhile, at about 9:00 in the morning, Suchit Singh, Chunchun Singh (since dead), Chando Singh, Lango Bind Ram Dheep Singh, Arjun Singh came there armed with pistols. Suchit Singh asked as to why he was cutting wheat crops but Nand Lai Mahton replied claiming the land to be his own along with the grown crops. Meanwhile four of the accused assaulted him with the butt of pistols. The informant witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, Ram Dweep Singh and Arjun Singh ordered to kill him. On that, Suchit Singh shot in the chest of Nand Lal Mahton, with his pistol, Chunchun Singh also fired his pistol causing wound in right arm, Nand Lal fell down, this PW saw him dead by the time he arrived at the place. Witness, Ramdeo Mahto, (PW-2), Bhagloo Mahto (PW-1) Radha Mahto, (PW-4) were also engaged in the process of harvesting crops, who arrived and saw the occurrence. 7. Witness, Ramdeo Mahto, (PW-2), Bhagloo Mahto (PW-1) Radha Mahto, (PW-4) were also engaged in the process of harvesting crops, who arrived and saw the occurrence. 7. The police arrived at the place of occurrence, recorded his fardbeyan and obtained his LTI also, prepared inquest report and seized blood stained soil, empty cartridges of 12 bore fire-arms and prepared seizure list. The informant has named others who have been harvesting other land by virtue of being Bataidar of that land since long. The cross-examination although an exhaustive one does not lead us to draw any adverse conclusion so far veracity of his deposition in respect of manner of crime, that is, shooting of the victim, Nand Lal Mahton by the appellants, Suchit Singh and his brother, Chunchun Singh at the place of occurrence; fall of the deceased at the said place; arrival of PWs and the police after occurrence, and recording of fardbeyan at the place of occurrence, is concerned. 8. Other witnesses, namely, PW-1, Bhagloo Mahto, PW-2, Ramdeo Mahto, PW-4 Radha Mahto who also happen to be the Pattidars or Gotias of the informant have more or less stated, on the same lines as that of informant. No doubt there is exaggeration so as to implicate Ram Deep Singh and Arjun Singh being Zameendars of the said land is concerned but that portion of evidence as also evidence in respect of implication of Chando Bind, has been disbelieved by the learned trial Court, after giving a serious consideration to the facts, circumstances, evidence and probabilities in the case. 9. PW-5 Dr. Navin Kumar Verma, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, Nandlal, has found following injuries on his person:- (1) Multiple pillet injuries on chest & upper part of abdomen which were extracted and kept in sealed vial. (2) Lacerated wound on the right side of chest, 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep, margin blackened & inverted, wound of exit on the back of left side 1/ 2" x 1/2". Abdominal cavity deep, damaging liver, stomach perforated and margin being everted. (3) Lacerated wound on right forearm on the lower part 1/4" x 1/4". (2) Lacerated wound on the right side of chest, 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep, margin blackened & inverted, wound of exit on the back of left side 1/ 2" x 1/2". Abdominal cavity deep, damaging liver, stomach perforated and margin being everted. (3) Lacerated wound on right forearm on the lower part 1/4" x 1/4". Continuity of both wounds, the medial side of forearm margin inverted & blackened and wound of exit was there on the lower part of right forearm 1/2" x 1/2" in the bone deep, fracture of the right radius margin eveerated caused by fire arm. The death as per opinion of the medical officer was caused due to fire arm injury within 12 hours of the postmortem examination sustained by the deceased, might be due to fire arm injuries shot from a distance not more than two yards. 10. The postmortem report in the facts and circumstances clearly goes to suggest that deceased sustained two fire arm injuries as stated in the fardbeyan i.e. on the chest and forearm shot by Suchit Singh and Chunchun Singh respectively. 11. PW-6, Shankar Prasad Yadav, a formal witness has proved some documents so as to show that there was Bataidari dispute in respect of whole chunk of land consisting of the P.O. land and finding of the Subdivisional Magistrate in a proceeding under Sec.144 Cr.P.C. was in favour of Bataidar and the occurrence as alleged took place within 60 days. All such documents relating to findings of the Executive Magistrate, go to show that those lands at the relevant time were in cultivating possession of the deceased and other Bataidars. In the facts and circumstances, presumption would be, that the Zamindar or their representatives were not in cultivating possession of the said land. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in course of hearing has focussed his arguments so as to disbelieve entire prosecution case in view of the fact that major portion of evidence of witnesses has been disbelieved by the trial court. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in course of hearing has focussed his arguments so as to disbelieve entire prosecution case in view of the fact that major portion of evidence of witnesses has been disbelieved by the trial court. According to him if that portion of exaggerated version of the deposition in respect of involvement of Ram Dweep Singh, Arjun Singh and other two accused persons could have been disbelieved by the trial court, the whole prosecution story in respect of commission of murder of the deceased at the place of occurrence for which the appellant, Suchit Singh has been held guilty, should also be disbelieved and in that context of the matter, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant. 13. But after giving a serious and conscious consideration to the aforesaid submission in connected facts, circumstances and surroundings, We are not persuaded to accept such contention in view of the fact that learned trial court has considered such aspect of their defence in right perspective and there is nothing to dispel such reasoning and logical conclusion given by the trial court, for giving such benefit of doubt to other accused persons, as We have been noticing that rarely anybody comes in the court or approaches any authority with full truth rather they believe in adding or suppressing something and in such a situation, the duty of the court is to separate grains of truth from chaff of falsehood. 14. In the aforesaid background, it is but natural for these Bataidars, who have been examined as PWs to support the prosecution story to implicate those landlords also to safeguard their future interest and for that, all the witnesses have stated regarding presence of Ram Dweep Singh and Arjun Singh at the place of occurrence and thereby giving orders to the shooters to shoot down Nand Lai Mahton. Such presence of Ram Dweep Singh and Arjun Singh has been disbelieved by the trial court on consideration of all the facts and circumstances. But in respect of the time, place and manner of occurrence the prosecution witnesses have succeeded in proving the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. 15. Such presence of Ram Dweep Singh and Arjun Singh has been disbelieved by the trial court on consideration of all the facts and circumstances. But in respect of the time, place and manner of occurrence the prosecution witnesses have succeeded in proving the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. 15. Although the I.O. has not been examined but non examination of the I.O. has not prejudiced the case of the appellant in the trial court nor any point was raised here so as to discard the prosecution case due to non examination of the I.O. 16. On consideration of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances and probabilities and the submissions, We are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order of conviction and imposition of sentence, so the appeal stands dismissed.