Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1278 (PAT)

Sadho Yadav v. State of Bihar

2012-09-10

ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2012
JUDGMENT Per: MIHIR KUMAR JHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.8.1990 passed by the 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S.Tr.No. 34 of 1979 whereby and whereunder the appellants Sadhu Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and Rajmani Yadav have been convicted for offences under sections 302, 302, 302/34 I.P.C. respectively and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. Appellant Jagdish Yadav has also been convicted for offence under section 323 I.P.C. as well and has been directed to undergo S.I. for six months. 2. The prosecution case has been initiated on a fardbeyan (Ext.1) of Murlidhar Choudhary (P.W.6) who had stated before the Police Officer (P.W.8) in the Government hospital, Chandan on 1.2.1974 at 3.00 P.M. that early morning on that very day in or around 6.30 P.M. a mob of 10 persons including the appellants had come to his house and had pelted stone as also abused him and his family members on account of an earlier land dispute of 13½ acres which was transferred by a Branch of the informant in the name of the appellant no.2 Jagdish Manjhi (Yadav) and Raghu Manjhi. The informant has also alleged that when pelting of stone and abusing was opposed by him and his father as also other family members and ten armed members of a mob including the appellants were chased to a distance of around 500 yards, a free-fight had commenced in which the appellant Sadhu Yadav with tangi and the appellant Jagdish Yadav with farsa had assaulted his father Jaleshwar Choudhary causing injury on different parts of his body, whereas his brother Chakradhar Choudhary was assaulted by the appellant Rajmani Yadav with a sickle, Jagdish Yadav by farsa, Sadhu Yadav by tangi and the informant also had sustained injury in the hands of the appellant Jagdish Yadav by farsa as also injury by lathi at the hand of Gurudayal yadav. 3. The informant has also claimed that the entire occurrence was seen by Ishar Marich (not examined), Gultan Mahto (P.W.3), Chandar Mahto (P.W.1), Saryug Yadav (P.W.2) and Prithibi Nath Rai (P.W.5). It is the further case of the informant that his father had died while he was being carried to the hospital. The fardbeyan of the informant had been recorded in presence of one Sadhu Sharan Rai (not examined) and Permanand Rai (not examined). 4. It is the further case of the informant that his father had died while he was being carried to the hospital. The fardbeyan of the informant had been recorded in presence of one Sadhu Sharan Rai (not examined) and Permanand Rai (not examined). 4. On the basis of the aforementioned fardbeyan Katoria P.S.Case No. 5 dated 1.2.1974 was instituted and the police after investigation had submitted charge sheet against all the ten persons in which one Raju Yadav was shown to be absconder, whereas one more accused Gurdayal Yadav was said to have died during the course of trial on 13.5.1975. The trial, therefore, was conducted and completed only against eight of the accused persons and the trial court by the impugned judgment while convicting these three appellants had acquitted rest of the five co-accused, namely, Police Yadav, Bhua Yadav, Birju Yadav, Rajani Yadav and Arjun Yadav. 5. Assailing the aforementioned impugned judgment of conviction and sentence Mr. Vindhya Keshri Kumar, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, has submitted that the conviction of the appellants is wholly unsustainable either on fact or in law. In this regard he has submitted that though the prosecution had examined ten witnesses the only material witness in the given set of facts is P.W.6, the informant, inasmuch as the rest of the witnesses are not material witnesses on the point of manner and place of occurrence. He has further submitted that even the evidence of solitary witness P.W.6 would not inspire confidence on account of inherent contradiction in his fardbeyan and in his evidence in the court. Proceeding further he has submitted that when the F.I.R. itself though recorded on 1st of February, 1974 has been ultimately received in the court on 5.2.1974 i.e. after a gap of four days which would lead to an adverse inference as with regard to its belated and ante-dated. Mr. Kumar has also submitted that in absence of injury report of the informant his claim of being an eye witness to the occurrence itself becomes seriously doubtful especially when his own conduct of omitting his father-in-law (P.W.5) as an eye witness in court has been made deliberately by him to give a complete go-bye to the prosecution case as set out in his fardbeyan. He has also highlighted that the Doctor conducting postmortem of deceased Chakradhar was not examined and the postmortem report exhibited by P.W.10, an Advocate Clerk, would not be admissible in evidence. On the same analogy he has also submitted that the injury reports produced by the Advocate’s Clerk and sought to be exhibited with regard to injuries on the person of Chakradhar and Murlidhar is also not admissible as the doctor who had examined such injuries, namely, Dr. A.K. Singh was not examined. He has accordingly impressed before us that the prosecution case is full of absurdities which would not inspire confidence and in this regard he has submitted that when on the same and similar set of evidence five of the co-accused have been acquitted there could not have been any differentiation in the case of the appellants and thus conviction of appellants by the trial court cannot be sustained. 6. Per contra, Ms. Shashi Bala Verma, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, while defending the findings of the court below in the impugned judgment has submitted that true it is that three out of five witnesses named in the F.I.R. had turned hostile but then the deposition of P.W. 5 and P.W.6 by itself would be sufficient to uphold the prosecution version. She has also submitted that non-examination of the doctor conducting postmortem on the person of Chakradhar will not in any way materially affect the fate of the prosecution case inasmuch as the death of Chakradhar after two days of the occurrence is an admitted fact which has been proven by P.W.7, another Police Officer who had prepared the inquest report and sent his dead body for postmortem. As with regard to discrepancy in the version of the informant in his fardbeyan vis-à-vis his evidence in the court she has submitted that whatever was stated in brief as with regard to the place and manner of occurrence by the informant in the fardbeyan has only been expanded in his evidence and in fact the allegation of specific overt act of actual assault against the appellants remains the same and therefore, the prosecution case cannot be altogether discarded and disbelieved, inasmuch as the F.I.R. never be supposed to be an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case. As with regard to delayed receipt of the F.I.R. in court on 5.2.1974 she has submitted that the attention of the Investigating Officer has not been drawn by the defence and therefore, the appellants cannot take any advantage on this aspect. 7. Before we record our findings on the aforementioned submissions it would be necessary for us to only state here that the prosecution in support of its case had examined ten witnesses out of whom P.W.1 Chandar Yadav, P.W.2 Saryug Manjhi and P.W.3 Gultan Mahto though named in the F.I.R. as eye witness had turned hostile. P.W.4 Gauri Shankar Sahay, P.W.7 Bimal Chandra Goswami and P.W.10 Gauri Mohan Mitra are formal witnesses leaving the prosecution to have only two material witnesses in form of either P.W.5 Prithbi Nath Rai, the alleged eye witness in the F.I.R. or the informant Murlidhar Choudhary (P.W.6). The Investigating Officer Jai Narain Singh (P.W.8) and P.W.9 the doctor, Dr. C.C.Sinha who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of Jaleshwar Choudhary are the two other witnesses. The prosecution had also exhibited ten exhibits out of which Ext.1 is the Fardbeyan, Ext.2 is formal F.I.R., Ext.3 is the signature of Murlidhar Choudhary on the fardbeyan, Ext.4 series are the inquest report of the two deceased Murlidhar and Chakradhar, Ext.5 is the carbon copy of Challan, Ext.6 series are the injury reports, Ext. 7 series are the signature of Dr. Awadh Kishore Sinha conducting postmortem, Ext.8 is the sketch map, Ext.9 is the seizure list and Ext. 10 series are the postmortem report. 8. The defence has led no oral evidence and apart from its case of denial of the total occurrence in the manner alleged it has come out that it is own case that the occurrence was committed in a different manner in which the prosecution party themselves were aggressor and in order to support this aspect they have exhibited two documents, Ext.A being the order sheet of Complaint Case No. 45/1974 and Ext.B being Solemn Affirmation in the aforementioned complaint case. 9. This case has a peculiar feature and therefore, at the outset we must record our total disapproval in the manner in which the prosecution has unfolded its story. 9. This case has a peculiar feature and therefore, at the outset we must record our total disapproval in the manner in which the prosecution has unfolded its story. As may be noted that in the charge sheet as many as 16 witnesses were named but then the prosecution could produce only ten witnesses including three of them who are absolutely formal in nature. The witnesses, who are also produced, have not even made slightest of their endeavor to support the place and manner of occurrence and therefore, this case virtually become the case of one eye witness inasmuch as even though he had seen the occurrence but in course of his examination-in-chief he has altogether omitted the name of P.W.5. P.W.5 Prithbi Nath Rai is non-else but the father-in-law of P.W.6 and when P.W.5 has also not identified any of the accused presence in court except Rajmani, his evidence is fit to be discarded as a whole. That being so, the occurrence part has now to be seen as per version of the solitary eye witness i.e. P.W.6. 10. A close perusal of the evidence of P.W.6 would, however, go to show that he has given a complete different version in court as against what he had stated in the fardbeyan. In the fardbeyan it was said that all ten persons had come to his house and they had abused, pelted stone and when chased upto 500 yards they had assaulted the family members of the informant, namely, father and his brother as also the informant himself. This part has been completely changed by the informant in his evidence in court where he has said that in the first round only 2-3 persons had come to his house and they had pelted stones and thereafter they had gone away. This part has been completely changed by the informant in his evidence in court where he has said that in the first round only 2-3 persons had come to his house and they had pelted stones and thereafter they had gone away. The assault story in fact has been also given a complete change by abandoning the story of chase of the appellants by the informant and his family members from their house which has been substituted in the court by the informant wherein he had stated that when the father of the informant going to his field all the ten accused persons hiding in a ditch (Gadha) had suddenly emerged and started assaulting his father and when he had fallen in the ditch and was sought to be rescued by his brother Chakradhar who had gone to save him he also was inflicted injuries over his person followed by assault on informant when he had to save his brother Chakradhar. 11. The manner of occurrence, therefore, has been completely changed by the informant in the court and the reason for the same would become clear because in view of the earliest version of chase and assault disclosed in fardbeyan of the informant the prosecution could not have explained covering of 500 yards from their house. As a matter of fact on account of this volte face of the informant even the place of occurrence has been changed. As has been noted above, in the F.I.R. the place of occurrence was at a place 500 yards from the house of the informant and the entire occurrence in one go was said to have been committed there. The informant, however, in the court in his evidence had stated that such occurrence leading to assault on his father (deceased) had taken place at a distance of 100-125 yards in a ditch. The story of assault in the ditch was nowhere in the F.I.R. lodged by him. This change in the place of occurrence in fact was necessitated because the Investigating Officer had found the place of occurrence only at a distance of 20-25 yard. The Investigating Officer in fact had found another place of occurrence situated at 70-75 yards from the house of the informant which was another ditch at a distance of 125 yards. This change in the place of occurrence in fact was necessitated because the Investigating Officer had found the place of occurrence only at a distance of 20-25 yard. The Investigating Officer in fact had found another place of occurrence situated at 70-75 yards from the house of the informant which was another ditch at a distance of 125 yards. Thus, P.W.6 had not only given up the story of chase by them up to a distance of 500 yards and the occurrence taking place in a field but had cleverly shifted it to a ditch adjacent to his house by taking a plea that such assault had taken place when his father was going towards his field. In this way not only the manner of occurrence but also place of occurrence was completely changed by the only alleged eye witness to the occurrence, namely, the informant (P.W.6). 12. As a matter of fact in absence of the injury report of the informant proven by the doctor who had examined him will lead to another question as to whether the informant had sustained any injury in course of assault on his father as alleged by him. It has to be noted that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by P.W.8, the Investigating Officer in the Government Hospital, Chandan on 1.2.1974 but the doctor who had examined the injury either on his person or on the person of Chakradhar Choudhary was not examined. Chakradhar Choudhary is also said to have died during the course of his treatment at Deoghar on 3.2.1974 but even his postmortem report has not been proven nor the doctor conducting the postmortem on the person of Chakradhar Choudhary has been examined. Thus, there is complete absence to corroborate the version of the informant as with regard to the injury either sustained by him or his brother Chakradhar Choudhary in course of the same occurrence. 13. The credibility of the informant (P.W.6) in fact has marked the new low when he during his cross-examination in paragraph 26 had stated that after the occurrence he had gone to the police station at about 3 P.M. in the afternoon and his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at the police station. 13. The credibility of the informant (P.W.6) in fact has marked the new low when he during his cross-examination in paragraph 26 had stated that after the occurrence he had gone to the police station at about 3 P.M. in the afternoon and his fardbeyan was recorded by the police at the police station. On the other hand, P.W.8, the Investigating Officer who had recorded the fardbeyan had categorically stated in his evidence in Examination-in-Chief that he had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant in the hospital on 1.2.1974 at 3 P.M. after he had received the requisition of the Medical Officer of Chandan hospital at the police station. There being two attesting witnesses to the ferdbayan of PW6 recorded on 1.2.1974 in the hospital namely Sadhu Sharan Rai and Parmanand Rai and when neither of them have been examined by prosecution, an adverse inference will have to be drawn against PW6 in view of his attention drawn in paragraph no. 21 of his cross examination. 14. The informant, P.W.6, in fact has been virtually exposed inasmuch as in paragraph 26 of his cross-examination he had not only categorically stated that the fardbeyan was recorded at the police station at 3 P.M. on 1.2.1974 where he had gone immediately after the occurrence but he has also stated that the police after recording the fardbeyan had gone back to the place of occurrence and his dead father and the injured brother Chakradhar Choudhary were thereafter taken to the hospital. Obviously the aforesaid statement of P.W.6 has been contradicted by the Investigating Officer who has stated that not only fardbeyan was recorded in Chandan hospital but even inquest report after recording of the fardbeyan was prepared by him in the hospital at 5 P.M. on 1.2.1974 and he had gone to the place of occurrence only after returning back to the police station and sending the dead body of the deceased Jaleshwar Choudhary, the father of the informant, for postmortem to Banka. From the postmortem report also it is clear that the same was dispatched at 5.30 P.M. on 1.2.1974 and therefore, the place of occurrence could have been inspected by the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) any time after 6 P.M. in view of distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being six Miles. From the postmortem report also it is clear that the same was dispatched at 5.30 P.M. on 1.2.1974 and therefore, the place of occurrence could have been inspected by the Investigating Officer (P.W.8) any time after 6 P.M. in view of distance of the police station from the place of occurrence being six Miles. Thus, the informant (P.W.6) had not only changed the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence but had even gone to change the manner and place of recording of the fardbeyan. 15. In this regard it is also significant to note that though the ferdbayan and formal F.I.R. was recorded on 1.2.1974 but the same was received in the court after four days i.e. on 5.2.1974. A question would thus arise that if there was a fardbeyan already given by the informant at the police station how could the same disappear and was substituted by the fardbeyan of the informant allegedly given in the hospital. The prosecution, however, has failed to explain this and at least there is nothing on record to show that a fardbeyan recorded on 1.2.1974 being a Friday how could it consume a period of four days in reaching to the court which was sent by the Magistrate only on 5.2.1974 being a Tuesday. As noted above when two witnesses to the fardbeyan being Sadhu Sharan Rai and Permanand Rai, who are also witnesses to the inquest report, had not been examined, the prosecution cannot be said to have adduced evidence of the reliable witnesses. As a matter of fact, apart from the informant there were five named witnesses to the occurrence in the fardbeyan of the informant and out of them while Iser Marich has not been examined, rest three of them, namely, P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have not at all supported the prosecution case and in fact also declared hostile by the prosecution itself, leaving PW5 to support the prosecution case. 16. P.W.5 who thus was remaining eye witness in the fardbeyan of the informant, far from supporting the prosecution case has in evidence virtually ruined the prosecution case. 1, 2 and 3 have not at all supported the prosecution case and in fact also declared hostile by the prosecution itself, leaving PW5 to support the prosecution case. 16. P.W.5 who thus was remaining eye witness in the fardbeyan of the informant, far from supporting the prosecution case has in evidence virtually ruined the prosecution case. In paragraph no.11 of his cross-examination he had claimed that his statement was recorded by the police on 2.2.1974, the next day of the occurrence at the police station but the Investigating Officer (P.W.8), who had recorded his statement, in his cross-examination in paragraph 13 had stated that he had recorded the statement of P.W.5 on 15.2.1974 and in fact on the next day of the occurrence i.e. 2.2.1974 he had only recorded the statement of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and Iser Marich (not examined). A question would arise as to why P.W.5, the father-in-law of P.W.6, the informant, was trying to give his impression of being eye witness and the answer to the same again is found in paragraph 25 of his cross-examination, wherein according to him, the injured persons were brought to their house from the place of occurrence before proceeding to the hospital and the blood oozing out of the injured person was also there on the Darwaja of the house of the informant. It has to be only noted that the Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the Darwaja of the house of the informant nor there was any trace of any part of the occurrence to have taken place at the Darwaja, whereas it was the specific case of the informant in the F.I.R. that the accused persons including the appellants had pelted stone at the house of the informant. As a matter of fact the Investigating Officer in course of inspection of place of occurrence having also gone to the house of the informant did not find even a single tile of roof of his house to have been broken out of pelting of stones by accused which again would expose the complete falsehood introduced by the informant, P.W.6 in his fardbeyan and his evidence in court. 17. 17. The submission of the learned counsel for the State as with regard to belated version of the counter case or there being inherent weakness in the counter case of the appellants can also in no way be of any help or assistance to the prosecution, inasmuch as even if this Court will ignore the defence evidence, the prosecution case is bound to fail on account of its own discrepancies in the evidence of the solitary eye witness P.W.6. As a matter of fact when the entire genesis, place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence has been changed by the informant, P.W.6 and he has totally contradicted his earliest version given in the fardbeyan as has been categorically elicited from him in paragraph 21 of his cross-examination nothing more would require to hold him as an unreliable and untruthful witness. 18. As has been explained earlier, in the fardbeyan the informant had claimed arrival of all the ten accused persons to his place, but in court he has changed it by claiming arrival of only three of the appellants. In the fardbeyan he had claimed that the accused persons had pelted stones and abused the informant and his father and when they were challenged by the informant and his family members they had ran away after giving threat to them. This part of the story has been completely omitted in his evidence in court. Similarly, chasing of the accused persons by the informant and his family members to a distance of 500 yards and the occurrence taking place in a field leading to assault on the father of the informant as also the brother of the informant and the informant himself has been given a go-bye by substituting such assault on all three of them in a ditch when his father was allegedly going to his field after the first part of the occurrence. 19. In view of paragraph 21 of cross-examination of PW6 completely contradicting his own fardbeyan there will be no difficulty for this Court to hold that he is not eye witness to the occurrence and on the basis of his evidence the prosecution case could have been proved. The informant, P.W.6, claimed to be the sole eye witness in view of material discrepancies in his evidence cannot be relied and the entire prosecution case is fit to be discarded. The informant, P.W.6, claimed to be the sole eye witness in view of material discrepancies in his evidence cannot be relied and the entire prosecution case is fit to be discarded. Learned counsel for the appellants is correct in placing his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 338, wherein it was held that the prosecution case resting on the version of the sole witness, who is the informant, was bound to fail if evidence of such solitary witness being the informant was incomplete departure to his earlier version given in the F.I.R. 20. The failure on the part of the prosecution, therefore, to produce even one truthful and reliable eye witness to the occurrence would lead to another important question as to whether if on the same set of evidence the trial court had acquitted five of the eight co-accused, could it have convicted these three appellants only because as against them in the fardbeyan there was a specific allegation of overt act? The trial court in fact seems to be over impressed only on this aspect that as the informant had named these three appellants to be the assailant of Jaleshwar and Chakradhar, the two persons who are said to have died, their cases would stand on a different footing as against rest of the five persons acquitted. In the considered opinion of this Court there is however no difference in the case of these three persons vis-à-vis five acquitted persons, inasmuch as if P.W.5 was to be disbelieved it was for all of them and similarly the evidence of P.W.6 by itself would not have led to conviction of these three appellants as he had given a total inconsistent and unreliable version in the court. 21. Thus, having given our anxious consideration to the materials on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case much less beyond reasonable doubt against any of the three appellants and therefore, their conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment can not be quashed. The impugned judgment is, accordingly, set aside. 22. In the result this appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail and accordingly, they would stand discharged from the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.