Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1105 (PAT)

RAM PRASAD YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR

2012-08-09

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 07th March, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 08th March, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 1999/135 of 1999. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is based on the statement of the informant Ganga Sagar Singh, who was the Guard in the Railways. It has been stated by him that he was taking a train from Mughalsarai to Garhwa. The train which the informant was taking stopped at Sone Nagar Railway Station. He along with his colleague Sagir Alam went to meet the Station Master of Sone Nagar Railway Station to enquire as to when their trains would be able to depart from Sone Nagar Railway Station. They were informed that the trains would not be in a position to go further as there was a blockage in the Railway Crossing and until that was cleared, the further movement of the trains had been stopped. It is said that the informant along with Sagir Alam then went to the canteen for a cup of tea. While, at the canteen, the owner of the canteen, who is the appellant before this Court, gave a lathi blow on the head of the informant. He was taken for treatment to the Railway Hospital which is just adjacent to the Railway Station, from where, he was referred to Mughalsarai Railway Hospital. Sagir Alam is the witness to the occurrence. 3. During Trial, six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution out of which PW 3 Jagdish Yadav and PW 5 Ram Chandra Singh were declared hostile. PW 4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary who has examined the informant Ganga Sagar Singh (PW 1). PW 6 Ram Ganeshi Singh is the Investigating Officer of this Case, whereas PW 2 Sagir Alam is the eye-witness to the occurrence. 4. PW 1 Ganga Sagar Singh, the informant, has supported the prosecution case regarding the manner of occurrence. PW 4 is Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary who has examined the informant Ganga Sagar Singh (PW 1). PW 6 Ram Ganeshi Singh is the Investigating Officer of this Case, whereas PW 2 Sagir Alam is the eye-witness to the occurrence. 4. PW 1 Ganga Sagar Singh, the informant, has supported the prosecution case regarding the manner of occurrence. He has specifically stated that he was treated firstly at Sone Nagar Railway Hospital and thereafter was referred to Mughalsarai Railway Hospital. He remained in the hospital for about 12 days at Mughalsarai as an Indoor Patient and was treated as an Out-door patient for about 88 days. According to this witness, he was given 08 stitches on his head at Mughalsarai. 5. PW 2 Sagir Alam, who is the colleague of PW 1 and had accompanied the informant to meet the Station Master and enquire about the timings of departure of the trains and had also accompanied the informant to the tea-stall, has supported the prosecution version. Counsel for the appellant refers to the statement made by PW 2 in the cross-examination wherein it would appear that he has stated that he has not gone with the informant to the tea-stall of the appellant. This witness has also stated that this occurrence took place because of some dispute with the appellant over serving the tea. 6. PW 6 Ram Ganeshi Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has supported the case. He has visited the canteen and had taken evidence of all the witness, including the informant and PW 2 Sagir Alam. 7. There is nothing in the evidence of all the three witnesses i.e. PWs 1, 2 and 6 which would in any way undermine the case as made out in the First Information Report. 8. PW 4 Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary has supported the injuries and he has stated that the injury received by the informant is grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, it has been specifically stated that this injury could not have been received by a fall, which is the defence version of the occurrence. 9. 8. PW 4 Dr. Sunil Kumar Choudhary has supported the injuries and he has stated that the injury received by the informant is grievous in nature. In his cross-examination, it has been specifically stated that this injury could not have been received by a fall, which is the defence version of the occurrence. 9. The Trial Court while considering the evidence came to a finding that no case is made out under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code as the injury is not covered by the definition of Grievous Hurt” under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code, which may be quoted here:- “Eighthly :- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits”. 10. On the basis of the evidence of the informant that he remained in the hospital for 12 days, the Court has held that the injury is not grievous in nature and has acquitted the appellant under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code, but has convicted him under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Counsel for the appellant argued that PW 2 cannot be treated to be an eye-witness to the actual occurrence in view of his statement that he was not present at the place of occurrence. This Court finds that PW 2 has described the manner in which the occurrence has taken place in some details. In any event, even if it is presumed that PW 2 was not present at the tea-stall, where the occurrence has taken place, this Court finds no reason to dislodge the statement of the informant and the fact that PW 2 has supported the fact that he along with the informant were standing at Sone Nagar Railway Station due to blockage of the Railway Crossing. It would also be apparent that he took the informant to the Sone Nagar Railway Hospital, and as such, his evidence cannot be completely discarded. 12. It would also be apparent that he took the informant to the Sone Nagar Railway Hospital, and as such, his evidence cannot be completely discarded. 12. Counsel for the appellant further argued that no case is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, even if it is accepted that the prosecution version is completely correct, the fact that the blow was not repeated by the appellant, to cause an injury which could be fatal and cause the death of the informant would indicate that there was no “intention” as required under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also apparent that there were no intervening circumstances preventing the appellant from repeating the blow. The narrations of the evidence and the First Information Report does not disclose any strong motive for the occurrence which again leads this Court to the conclusion that there could not be any intention to cause permanent bodily harm to the informant. Therefore, this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant cannot be held guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. After discussing the manner of occurrence and the evidence led in this case, I modify the sentence to one under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has remained in custody for only four months and even though the injury is not grievous one, it was serious enough to deter the appellant from performing his normal activities for a period of 12 days and as such, this Court imposes the maximum fine of Rs. 1,000/- to be paid to the injured Ganga Sagar Singh or his legal heir, if he is not alive. The amount of fine should be deposited before the Trial Court within a period of four months from the date of valid service of notice, failing which he has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The Trial Court will issue notice to the injured Ganga Sagar Singh, or his legal heir, if he is not alive to receive the amount of fine imposed by this Court. 14. The appellant would be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case only after payment of fine before the Trial Court. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the sentence.