Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1004 (PAT)

Vinod Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-07-23

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th December, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 1995 (arising out of Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 227 of 1994) by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah. Initially, two persons were put on trial, but in course of trial, one of the accused, namely, Baidyanath Ram was acquitted by the Trial Court, whereas the appellant has been found and held guilty for the offences under Sections 323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are to run concurrently. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the injured Ram Nath Ram and Rs. 1,000/- to the injured Budhu Ram. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report instituted by Ram Nath Ram (PW 3) on 28th July, 1994 at 01:45 PM indicates that the occurrence took place in two parts. It is stated that Ram Nath Ram was getting his wall constructed, Baidyanath Ram and the appellant intervened and it is alleged that the appellant assaulted Budhu Ram, one of the labourers by means of a FARSA. The informant (PW 3) took Budhu Ram to the hospital for treatment and while he was returning, it is alleged that Vinod Ram by means of a DABIA assaulted him on his head as well as on different parts of his body, which was witnesses by PWs 5 and 6, who were the shopkeepers of the vicinity. The reason for the alleged occurrence is land dispute and criminal cases between the parties. 3. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PWs 1 and 3 are the injured, PWs 5 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 4 is the doctor who has examined the injured PW 3(informant) and PW 8 is the doctor who has examined the injured PW 1. PW 9 is the doctor who has conducted the X-ray of the skull of PW 3. The X-ray report is Exhibit-7. 4. PW 9 is the doctor who has conducted the X-ray of the skull of PW 3. The X-ray report is Exhibit-7. 4. The evidence that has come on record indicates that there was an enmity between Ram Nath Ram and Baidyanath Ram (since acquitted) and his son Vinod Ram. The reason for the enmity was that Baidyanath Ram had purchased a piece of land from Doma Ram, who according to the informant, had no right, title or possession over the lands in question. It was the khatiyani land belonging to the grandfather of PW 3 Ram Nath Ram. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 disclosed that there was a wall under construction near the house of the informant, which led Vinod Ram to assault Budhu Ram, one of the workers. The specific case which seems to be undisputed is that the informant took Budhu Ram after he was injured to the hospital. It may be noted that PW 3 was not assaulted by Vinod Ram, although he was supposedly present at the place of occurrence. It was while returning from the hospital that Vinod Ram assaulted Ram Nath Ram (PW 3), which led to the injuries. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that as far as the first part of the occurrence is concerned, which took place at 10 AM, Ram Nath Ram took no steps either to report the matter to the police or lodge a sanha against the appellant and his father, which would go to show that in fact there was no consorted efforts on behalf of the accused to stop the construction of the wall, as if there was an intention to stop the work at the site where the construction work was going on, the appellant and his father would have also assaulted the main person, i.e. the informant Ram Nath Ram, PW 3, against whom they had a grudge and against whom they were aggrieved. It has been argued that the single simple injury caused to the injured Budhu Ram would also indicate that the injuries was due to some accident which took place at the building site, rather than in the manner as discussed in the First Information Report. It has been argued that the single simple injury caused to the injured Budhu Ram would also indicate that the injuries was due to some accident which took place at the building site, rather than in the manner as discussed in the First Information Report. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by contending that whereas the informant claims that Budhu Ram was assaulted by FARSA, Budhu Ram in his deposition before the Court, has stated that he was assaulted by means of a BHALA. According to the appellant, therefore, it is a case of false implication and the occurrence did not took place in the manner alleged and, therefore, this Court ought to disregard the entire evidence of PW 3 with respect to the first part of the occurrence. 6. The contradiction, according to the Counsel for the appellant, indicates that in fact PW 3 was not present at the place of occurrence when Budhu Ram was injured and as such there was no attempt by the appellant to assault him. The evidence of PW 3 read with the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 would indicate that Vinod Ram assaulted PW 3 in the market place with a DABIA on his head. Counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out anything in the depositions of PWs 5 and 6 or for that matter, PW 3, which can be disbelieved on this aspect of the matter. Even if, it is presumed that PW 1 received injury because of some accident, this Court cannot disbelieve that PW 3 was assaulted by the appellant. The injury report which is Exhibit-6 is quoted herein below:– “1. Incised wound right side scalp (laterlally) 2” x ½” x deep bone with bleeding. 2. Incised would right side scalp (posteriorly) 1” x ½” x ½” with bleeding. 3. Incised wound on vertex 2” x ½ “ x ½” with bleeding. 4. Incised wound on the forehead 3” x ½” x ½” with bleeding. 5. Incised wound on the right arm 1” x ½” x ½” with bleeding. 6. incised wound on the right thumb 1” x ½” x ½” with bleeding.” 7. The doctor has opined that the injuries have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as DABIA and are simple in nature. 5. Incised wound on the right arm 1” x ½” x ½” with bleeding. 6. incised wound on the right thumb 1” x ½” x ½” with bleeding.” 7. The doctor has opined that the injuries have been caused by a sharp cutting weapon, such as DABIA and are simple in nature. It has been argued on behalf of the prosecution that the doctor has mentioned that injury nos. 1 to 3 and 1 to 4 may be dangerous to life. It appears subsequently that the X-ray was called for and PW 9 who is the doctor who conducted the X-ray and has found a fracture line in the right parietal bone of the skull. Again, Counsel for the appellant has not been able to convince this Court to disregard this part of the evidence. 8. In fact, it has been argued that the entire case should be disbelieved for the reason that the first part of the occurrence is improbable and that the informant has not been able to produce any document which would indicate that the cause of the occurrence i.e. the land dispute existed at the time of the occurrence. The documents that have been produced i.e. Exhibits 8 to 12, indicate that there was some sort of suit pending between the parties, but apparently the informant has not lead evidence to show that the land on which the wall was being constructed is the subject matter of the said suit. 9. Be that as it may, it is admitted and undisputed that the parties are on litigating terms as it was admitted that there was a dispute regarding the lands since 1980 and that a criminal case was earlier filed by the mother of this appellant. 10. Lastly, it has been emphasized that the occurrence took place in the year 1994 and the appellant has already remained in custody for 3 months and 7 days and as such to send the appellant back to custody almost after 18 years of the alleged occurrence, would rekindle the entire dispute which has died due to lapse of time. It is further submitted that it is enough punishment for the appellant to have the sword of conviction hanging on his head for the past 18 years and, therefore, this Court should not send back the appellant to jail. 11. It is further submitted that it is enough punishment for the appellant to have the sword of conviction hanging on his head for the past 18 years and, therefore, this Court should not send back the appellant to jail. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court alters the sentence to period already undergone and further direct that the appellant should pay a fine of Rs. 7,000/- to the injured Budhu Ram, and in default of which, he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The amount of fine would be deposited before the Trial Court within a period of three months from today and the Trial Court will ensure payment of fine to the injured Budhu Ram. 12. This appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence. The appellant would be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case only on payment of fine before the Trial Court.