Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 503 (PAT)

Munna Singh S/o Late Hira Singh v. State Of Bihar

2011-04-01

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant Munna Singh has been convicted under Section 307/452/148 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, 6 months and 1 year as also under Section 27 of the and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year whereas the Appellants of Cr. App. No. 174 of 1994 have been convicted under Section 452, 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months respectively, whereas the Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and Appellant No. 5 under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to 6 months rigorous imprisonment by the judgment dated 31.5.1994 passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 243/1980. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on account of land dispute between the parties on the night of 13/14-11-1993 the accused persons entered into the house of the informant and the Appellant Munna Singh allegedly fired at the right thigh of Ramchandra Singh P.W.4 where as rest of the accused persons assaulted other injured persons. 3. The prosecution to prove its case examined 7 witnesses out of whom P.W.5 is the informant and P.W.4 is the nephew of the informant and both of them are injured whereas P.W.3 is the brother of the informant and P.W.2 is the cousin of the informant and P.W.1 is the father-in-law of uncle of P.W.5 and P.W.6 is formal witness whereas P.W.7 is the doctor who examined two injured. 4. The defence of the Appellant was that previously the accused persons had been charged with the murder of the wife of P.W.5 in which they were acquitted and therefore, to feed their grudge the prosecution once again implicated the Appellants in the present case. Further defence was that there was admittedly land dispute between the parties. 5. On going through the evidence, I find that undoubtedly, all the witnesses are interested and family members of the informant and no independent witness has been examined which was essential since there was active animosity between the parties. 6. Further it appears that there was about 11 hours of delay in instituting the present First Information Report which give rise to a suspicion that the prosecution was deliberating about the probable story to be enumerated. 6. Further it appears that there was about 11 hours of delay in instituting the present First Information Report which give rise to a suspicion that the prosecution was deliberating about the probable story to be enumerated. Moreover, the evidence of both the injured witnesses with regard to the manner of occurrence is also discrepant on material particulars. 7. In view of the discussion above, the appeal is allowed and conviction and sentenced of the Appellants passed by learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Patna by the judgment dated 31.5.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 243/1980 is hereby set aside and the Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.