Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 126 (PAT)

Chamak Lal Paswan v. State of Bihar

2012-01-23

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT Per Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.- The sole appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5.10.1989 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 556/1996 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years under Section 264, imprisonment for life under Section 302 and imprisonment for 5 years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that all the sentence will run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.08.1979, the appellant, the Peon of the school, came to the house of the informant Dilip Kumar (PW 3) intimating Sripati Chaudhary (deceased) that the Headmaster of the school was calling him for some necessary works. At that time, the wife of the deceased (PW- 1), mother (not examined) and brother Shankar Prasad (PW 2) were present. Sri Vidya Sagar Singh (acquitted), the Headmaster of the school was residing in his house at Shanichra Sthan, Mohalla-Jamalpur Deeh. The appellant was familiar with the members of the family of the deceased. The deceased accompanied the appellant and told the members of his family that the headmaster would be calling him for the celebration of 15th August, which was following on the next day. The deceased did not return to his house in the night. Thereafter, on the next day at about 11.00 a.m., the informant went to the school of his brother (deceased), but no one was available there. On the third day i.e. on 16.08.1989, the informant went to the school and met the Headmaster and the Peon (appellant). On inquiry, the appellant told that on 14th of August, 1989 itself, he accompanied the deceased to the house of the Headmaster. Thereafter, he does not know whereabouts of the deceased. After some time, the Headmaster accused Vidya Sagar Singh came there and he also showed ignorance. It has been suspected that the appellant in collusion with the other accused has confined the deceased somewhere with intention to kill him. A written information dated 22.08.1979 (Ext. 1) was given to the police station. Thereafter, Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 16 dated 22.08.1979 was instituted under Section 364 of the I.P.C. 3. It has been suspected that the appellant in collusion with the other accused has confined the deceased somewhere with intention to kill him. A written information dated 22.08.1979 (Ext. 1) was given to the police station. Thereafter, Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 16 dated 22.08.1979 was instituted under Section 364 of the I.P.C. 3. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused Chamak Lal Paswan (appellant), Bhagwan Paswan and Vidya Sagar Singh for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, cognizance was taken against the aforesaid three accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the accused were put on trial. The accused pleaded their innocence, so the trial proceeded. 4. The charges were framed against all the three accused for the offences punishable under Sections 364/34, 302/34 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. After the trial, the accused Vidya Sagar Singh and Bhagwan Paswan have been acquitted and the appellant has been found guilty and convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. 5. The defence of all the three accused is that they are not guilty and they have not committed any offence. 6. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined Shanti Devi (PW 1), Shankar Chaudhary (PW 2), Dilip Kumar (PW 3), Ishwar Pd. Chaudhary (PW 4), Lala Trinetra Bhushan Prasad (PW 5), Satya Narayan Pd. Gaur (PW 6), Anoop Paswan (PW 7), Shivpati Chaudhary (PW 8), Ram Bahadur Pal (PW 9), Banarasi Chaudhary (PW 10) and Mahadeo Chaudhary (PW 11). 7. The defence has also examined Gautam Singh (D.W.1) and Ramanand Singh (D.W.2). 8. Now, let us examine as to whether the prosecution has been able to substantiate its case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 9. PW 4 and PW 11 out of the prosecution witnesses have been tendered. PW 1 is the wife of the deceased and PW 2 is the son of the deceased. PW 3 is the informant himself and the brother of the deceased. They have supported the facts of the case to the extent that on 14.08.1979 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant (peon of the Ghorghat High School) came to their house and intimated Sripati Chaudhary (deceased) that the Headmaster Vidya Sagar Singh was calling him at his residence and requested to accompany him. They have supported the facts of the case to the extent that on 14.08.1979 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant (peon of the Ghorghat High School) came to their house and intimated Sripati Chaudhary (deceased) that the Headmaster Vidya Sagar Singh was calling him at his residence and requested to accompany him. PW 1 has stated that thereafter, the deceased went with the appellant and told her (PW 1) that he would return after the flag hoisting on 15th August, 1979. Her husband did not return on 15.07.1979 to his house, thereafter, she asked her devar Dilip Kumar (PW 3) to search him. PW 3 went to the Ghorghat High School and told her no one was available there. Then, she also went to the house of the Headmaster on 16.08.1979 to inquire about her husband. The Headmaster Vidya Sagar Singh told her that he (deceased) had gone to Patna. PW 3 also searched him in the school and also at the house of his relatives, but he was not traced out. She has stated that her husband had difference with the accused Vidya Sagar Singh (Headmaster). She has further stated that within ten days of the occurrence, Muzaffarpur Police came and showed the photograph of the dead body, which was identified as that of her husband. Thereafter, she could know that her husband was killed. 10. Similar is the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3. PW 5 is the witness of the inquest report and the Chief Ticket Collector. PW 6 is the Train Superintendent. PW 7 is a Railway Porter, who had brought out a box from the second class compartment of the Dhurian Train at Muzaffarpur Railway Station and put in the offence of the Ticket Collector. Later on he could know that there was a dead body in that box. PW 8, PW 9 and PW 10 are the co-villagers of the deceased. From whose evidence, it appears that photograph was shown to them by the police officer and that photograph was identified of Sripati Chaudhary (deceased). 11. In this case, the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined. 12. It appears that there is no eye witness to the occurrence nor there is any direct evidence against the appellant on the point of murder in this case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. 11. In this case, the Doctor and I.O. have not been examined. 12. It appears that there is no eye witness to the occurrence nor there is any direct evidence against the appellant on the point of murder in this case. It is a case of circumstantial evidence. The allegation against the appellant is that he had gone to the house of the deceased to call him and accompanied to the house of the Headmaster. 13. No doubt, the accused may be prosecuted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances should form a chain, which should point to the guilt of the accused. In this case, the chain of circumstance is not complete. The chain leads only against the appellant to the extent that he accompanied the deceased to the house of the Headmaster Vidya Sagar Singh, co-accused. 14. It also appears that on the same evidence the Vidya Sagar Singh and the co-accused Bhagwan Prasad have been acquitted by the learned trial Court. 15. In the facts and circumstances stated above, it appears that the circumstances shown by the prosecution is not sufficient to prove that the appellant is guilty. 16. In such background of facts narrated above, we find that the prosecution has not been able to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution case fails. The appellant is acquitted. 17. In the result, the judgment of the conviction and sentence is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.