Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1178 (PAT)

Amlendu Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-08-24

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT (ORAL) Smt. Sheema Ali Khan, J.- The sole appellant having found guilty for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. He has also been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The First Information Report has been instituted on the statement of Raj Kumar on 05.08.1994. The occurrence took place in the neighbourhood of Kadamkuan at Patna. The informant does not personally know either the appellant or the injured Munna Kumar. According to his version of the occurrence, he was going to eat something at the shop of Ranjeet. In the meantime, he noticed two boys talking to each other. One of the boys took out a pistol and fired, which hit the region of the heart of the other person, namely, Munna Kumar. The person who fired was apprehended with the help of others and was taken to the Police Station whereas Munna was sent for treatment to the Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna. The informant came to know the names of the two persons, i.e. Munna Kumar, the injured and the appellant Amlendu Kumar after the occurrence. 3. In this case, unfortunately although six witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW 3 Hira Ram, PW 4 Ranjeet Singh, PW 5 Lal Babu Singh and PW 6 Nawal Kishore Singh have turned hostile. The Investigating Officer of this case and the doctor, who examined the injured Munna Kumar, have not been examined by the prosecution in this case, which is fatal to the prosecution. So much so, the injury report has also not been produced, much less proved-Apart from which, there is no sanction order for prosecution under Section 27 of the Arms Act and as such, it would appear that the conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act has to be set aside on this technical ground. 4. The evidence of PW 1 Munna Kumar, the injured, reveals that the cause of the occurrence was a paltry sum of Rs. 30/- to be paid by him to the appellant as his share for hiring a V.C.R. Both the appellant and the injured live in a hut (jhopri) and obviously are not well off and are poor persons. 4. The evidence of PW 1 Munna Kumar, the injured, reveals that the cause of the occurrence was a paltry sum of Rs. 30/- to be paid by him to the appellant as his share for hiring a V.C.R. Both the appellant and the injured live in a hut (jhopri) and obviously are not well off and are poor persons. It also transpires that both of them were friends and it was because the injured could not pay Rs. 30/- immediately to the appellant that he fired on Munna Kumar. 5. PW 2 Raj Kumar similarly supports this case inasmuch as he being an outsider and not concerned directly either with the appellant or with the injured, has given his independent statement. Unfortunately, the statement of these two witnesses could not be tested and examined by taking the evidence of the doctor. 6. Therefore, this Court is now left with the sole evidence of the injured which remains uncorroborated regarding the injury. According, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentenced dated 2nd February, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 170 of 1995 is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. He is also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 7. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.