Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1270 (PAT)

Vijay Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-09-07

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. The three appellants have been found guilty in Sessions Trial No. 1139 of 1992 for offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant no. 3 has been found guilty under Section 324 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. All the appellants have been convicted to undergo R.I. to three years. 2. The prosecution case is that Sachidanand Prasad Singh alleges that he had gone to see the ‘Parti’ land situated near his house. The informant was removing a piece of log was lying which on the vacant land. Mangani Singh objected, where upon the informant asserted his title over the piece of log. Mangani then called out of his sons, who ran towards the house and came armed with two bombs in their hands Ajay Singh and Vijay Singh threw the bombs on the informant. The informant received injuries on left leg and toes of his left leg by the bomb exploded by Vijay Singh. It is alleged that the informant was assaulted, as a result of which he received, injuries on his chest. On hearing the sound of bomb explosions, the family members of the informant came to the place of occurrence. 3. The fact which would be fatal for the prosecution is that the doctor and the Investigating Officer have not been examined in this case. It is an accepted fact that the informant Sachidanand Prasad Singh and Mangani Singh, the appellant, are brothers. It has also come during the evidence of all the witnesses that they share a common Angan and there are two doors to exit and enter the house. It is also accepted that there is an oral partition between the two brothers which obviously does not satisfy both of them. 4. In this case P.Ws. 1 and 2 have turned hostile and as such this case is based on the testimony of the informant and two other witnesses. The informant P.W.5 Sachidanand Prasad Singh supports his case as made out in the First Information Report. In the cross-examination he has stated that he was taken to the hospital after the occurrence and remained in the hospital for a couple of days. He does not recall who came to the place of occurrence. The informant P.W.5 Sachidanand Prasad Singh supports his case as made out in the First Information Report. In the cross-examination he has stated that he was taken to the hospital after the occurrence and remained in the hospital for a couple of days. He does not recall who came to the place of occurrence. The Court had recorded his conduct and by asking him as to whether he tried to save himself by running away from the place of occurrence, when he heard Mangani Singh ordering his sons to assault. These questions were asked specifically with a view that after the order was issued by Mangani Singh, his sons Vijay Singh and Ajay Singh ran to their house and came out with bombs. It is expected that the normal behaviour of a person, would be to save himself by running away from the place of occurrence or calling out for help however, this witness apparently states that he did not get the time to run away as the bombs were thrown immediately after the order was given, which is rather unbelievable as it would take at least five minutes for Ajay and Vijay to carry out their father’s orders, as they were admittedly not present at the place of occurrence i.e. the vacant (Parti) land. 5. The case of the defence is that no such occurrence had taken place as the bombs were placed on the log, which exploded when the log was moved by the informant. 6. P.W.3, Sunil Kumar claims that he was drinking tea at the door of his house when the occurrence took place. This witness supports the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place in the ‘Parti’ land of the informant. P.W.3 Sunil Kumar is related to the informant as well as the appellants. He has given genealogical table and states that Ramdahin was the grand-father. He had three sons Visheshwar Singh, Shrikant Singh and Mangani Singh (appellant). Shrikant Singh had three sons Sachidanand Singh (informant), Anil Kumar Singh and this witness (P.W.3). Mangani Singh has two sons Ajay and Vijay. He has fairly conceded that there is common Aangan of the informant and Mangani Singh, but both have separate doors. According to this witness, several persons came to the place of occurrence. 7. P.W.4 Ram Singari Devi is the wife of the informant. She specifically proved the prosecution version. Mangani Singh has two sons Ajay and Vijay. He has fairly conceded that there is common Aangan of the informant and Mangani Singh, but both have separate doors. According to this witness, several persons came to the place of occurrence. 7. P.W.4 Ram Singari Devi is the wife of the informant. She specifically proved the prosecution version. She has stated that she witnessed the occurrence when she was going to river Ganga to take bath. She has stated that she goes to river Ganges at the same time everyday. It may be noted that she is not named as a witness in the First Information Report. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid ocular evidence, the Court has found the appellants are guilty of offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court has relied on the injury report which has been exhibited in this case as Exhibit-3. The injury report has been proved by P.W.6 Subedar Singh. 9. P.W.6 Subedar Singh is the Advocate’s clerk he claims to have proved the handwriting of the doctor. This Court finds that there is nothing in his evidence to show that the Advocates’ clerk has any special association with the doctor, therefore this Court finds it difficult to rely on the injury report as it has not been validly proved. Apart from which the appellants did not get the opportunity to cross examination the doctor, regarding the nature of the injuries allegedly inflicted. This Court also finds that there is no sanction under Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act. Therefore, the appellants could not have been convicted for offence under Section 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substance Act. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the injuries were inflicted by a bomb. Besides which the prosecution case also becomes doubtful, in view of the fact that there is only one witness to the occurrence that is the informant Sachidanand Singh. It is obvious from the First Information Report that no other persons except the appellants and Sachidanand Singh was present at the time when the occurrence took place. Besides which the prosecution case also becomes doubtful, in view of the fact that there is only one witness to the occurrence that is the informant Sachidanand Singh. It is obvious from the First Information Report that no other persons except the appellants and Sachidanand Singh was present at the time when the occurrence took place. The lacunas in the evidence of Sachidanand Singh already discussed leads this Court to doubt the manner in which occurrence had taken place for e.g.: although the informant had an opportunity, he failed to call for help or run away from the place of occurrence rather it is said that he remained on the spot and waited for the appellants Vijay Singh and Ajay Singh, who went inside the house and came out with bombs, to assault him. 10. In the facts of this case, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove his case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. 11. In the result, this appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.