Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1384 (PAT)

Bishwanath Singh v. State Of Bihar

2011-07-11

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Barh, in Sessions Trial No. 751 of 1987 by a Judgment dated 30.1.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to one Baiju Singh is that on 13.8.1983 at 6.00 P.M. when his employer and the injured learnt that his truck had been detained by the accused person, they proceeded along with one Kaileshwar Singh who has been examined as PW-1 and found that the truck had been detained. When attempt was made to go near the truck, the accused persons variously armed assaulted the said Sarju Singh on account of which he was seriously injured. 3. During trial, two accused persons died as also the Informant passed away, and, therefore, he was not examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1, Kaleshwar Singh, happens to be the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 2 "Samdhi" of the injured who gave an eye witness account as to how when he went to the place of occurrence to get custody of their truck, the accused persons assaulted the injured, on account of which he sustained serious injuries. PW-2 is the injured who stated that at 13.8.1983, when he went to the place of occurrence to bring back his truck, he found that sand was being unloaded by the Appellant from the said truck and while he was making the enquiry from the labourers, the accused persons came there, variously armed, and assaulted him. PW-3 is the Doctor who examined the injured and found as many as eight injuries on his persons most of which were on vital parts. From the evidence of the injured, I find that he conceded that he was examined by the Police after eight days of the occurrence and in the absence of the Investigating Officer, the reason has remained unexplained. 4. From the reasoning of the Trial Court, I find that PW-1 has been disbelieved by the Court, and, therefore, the case now rests on sole evidences of PW-2 and PW-3. 4. From the reasoning of the Trial Court, I find that PW-1 has been disbelieved by the Court, and, therefore, the case now rests on sole evidences of PW-2 and PW-3. PW-2 has stated that he was examined by the Police after eight days of the occurrence even though the Doctor in his evidence stated that the injured had been all along conscious and in fact, he had told him that 5-6 persons had assaulted him whereas the prosecution case is that only three persons had assaulted him. 5. In view of such discrepant evidence, I am not inclined to accept the prosecution case and sustain the conviction of the Appellant. 6. In the result, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant in Sessions Trial Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.30 of 1997 dt.11-07-2011 3 No. 751 of 1987 by the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Barh, is hereby set aside. 7. The Appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.