Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1535 (PAT)

Jatadhar Jha v. State of Bihar

2012-11-06

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. In these two criminal appeals, there are 26 appellants who have been found guilty under Sections 147, 353, 323 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Sections 353 and 120(B) and six months under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubni in Sessions Trial No. 57/83. The appellants in these cases have not recently been in touch with the counsels appearing in these appeals as a result of which they are not in a position to inform this Court as to whether any of the appellants have died during pendency of the appeals. 2. This is a case of rioting in which a mob of 1400-1500 persons had allegedly surrounded the house of Bhubneshwar Thakur and his brother Parmeshwar Thakur in order to commit loot for political reasons. The cause of the occurrence is that they wanted Comrade Sukhdev Sharma to be the Mukhiya which indicates that the appellants belonged to a particular party. The police when informed regarding collection of this mob of persons tried to control them by warning them to disperse and on failure resorted to firing which resulted in the death of six persons for which there is a counter case filed by Sakhi Chand Paswan, appellant no. 13 of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 349 of 2000. 3. Altogether 29 witnesses have been examined in these cases out of which P.Ws. 4, 5, 8, 9 and 12 have been tendered for cross-examination, whereas P.Ws. 7, 11, 16, 25, 26 and 29 are formal witnesses in these cases. P.Ws. 22, 23 and 27 are the doctors, P.Ws. 15 and 24 are the Investigating Officers and P.W. 18 is the Magistrate. P.W. 22 has conducted the postmortem Ramu Sah, Bouna Devi, Kusum Paswan, Mahendra Mandal and Babu Lal Mandal whereas, P.W. 23 has conducted the postmortem of Kari Sah. P.W. 27 had examined the persons injured during the occurrence. The medical evidence indicates that the injured persons received simple injuries mostly because of brick batting resorted to by the mob. 4. On behalf of the appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 333 of 2000, counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. P.W. 27 had examined the persons injured during the occurrence. The medical evidence indicates that the injured persons received simple injuries mostly because of brick batting resorted to by the mob. 4. On behalf of the appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 333 of 2000, counsel for the appellants submits that appellant no. 1 Jatadhar Jha has been named by P.W. 2 and P.W. 17 as the person who had mobilized the crowd to gather for the purpose of holding a meeting which ultimately resulted in the crowd getting out of hand. It is submitted that he was not named as being present as a member of the mob in the First Information Report. On behalf of appellant nos. 3 and 4, it is submitted that they have only been identified by one person and as such it is not safe for the Court to convict them. 5. Before reaching the conclusion, it would be proper to give summary of the prosecution case as made out in the First Information Report. Bhubneshwar Thakur has reported that a mob of about 1400-1500 persons armed with lathi, bhala, garasa, arrows, unlicensed gun and torch (MASHAL) surrounded his house. It is submitted that there were some women in the mob as well. They were shouting slogans “Inklab Jindabad, Jo hamse Takrayega, Chur-Chur ho jayega, Mukhiya ka ghar Loot Lo, Jo Uske ghar me mile usko mar do. Comrade Sukhdev Sharma ko Mukhiya wapas karo;” Bhubneshwar Thakur in order to save himself took refuge in the camp of the Magistrate and the police force, which was posted near his house. He has named about 14 persons as members of the mob apart from which it has been stated in the First Information Report that the mob was intercepted by the police party who tried to control them and fired blank rounds so that they may be warned, later they had to open fire on the mob, which resulted in death of few persons. The crowd tried to assault the police party by throwing their Bhalas at them and also indulged in brick-batting. After the police opened fire, which resulted in the death of few persons, the mob dispersed from the place of occurrence. The defence version is that no such occurrence has taken place, rather while they were holding a meeting the police personnel attacked them. After the police opened fire, which resulted in the death of few persons, the mob dispersed from the place of occurrence. The defence version is that no such occurrence has taken place, rather while they were holding a meeting the police personnel attacked them. It is further stated that there is a land dispute between the accused persons and the informant and this is the reason why the appellants have been involved in this case. 6. P.W. 17 is the informant of this case. He has supported the prosecution version in his evidence in toto and has stated the manner in which the mob attacked his house and ultimately the mob was diverted because of intervention of the police party and the Magistrate who had ordered firing. The informant also alleges that the members of the mob had entered his courtyard in order to loot away the grains that was stocked in his house. P.W. 21, Parmeshwar Thakur who is the brother of the informant (P.W. 17) has also supported the prosecution case and has stated that the mob had gone towards the house of his brother, broke open the door and entered the courtyard in order to loot away the grains. He admits that the police ultimately had resorted to firing as the mob was getting out of hand and had refused to disperse despite the fact that the Magistrate had fired a few blank rounds in order to disperse the mob. The main argument on behalf of the appellants is that these two persons i.e. the informant and his brother have tried to involve those persons with whom they had enmity, but they have not been able to substantiate this aspect of the matter and as such this Court cannot reject the evidence of P.Ws. 17 and 21. 7. To support the prosecution version, PWs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 and 28 have been examined. It would be almost a parrot like repetition of the sequence of events if this Court was to repeat the statements of the witnesses. All of them have supported gathering of a mob variously armed who had attacked the house of Bhubneshwar Thakur. 8. It has been argued that P.W. 2 is an interested witness as he is an employee of the informant. All of them have supported gathering of a mob variously armed who had attacked the house of Bhubneshwar Thakur. 8. It has been argued that P.W. 2 is an interested witness as he is an employee of the informant. However, it would be natural for the employee to be present at the place of occurrence when it took place and, therefore, this cannot be a ground for disbelieving the evidence of P.W. 2. P.W. 1 is the independent witness. He has stated that he saw the mob going towards the house of the informant and saw them breaking open the door and trying to loot away the grains. He fairly states that he saw Mahendra Mandal and Babu Lal Mandal sustained fire arm injuries because of the police firing. In the same manner, P.Ws. 3 and 19 have supported the prosecution version and have stated that the mob was in a violent mood and was shouting slogans against the informant. P.W. 20, Sakaldeo Bharti has also supported the prosecution case. He also supports the fact that the mob had resorted to brick batting and was throwing stones etc. at the police party. 9. An argument has been raised that the police had opened fire without any reason, on gathering of persons holding a meeting, which was peaceful and as such the prosecution has not been able to establish the place of occurrence. This argument cannot be sustained in view of the fact that the dead bodies of Ramu Sah, Bouna Devi, Kusum Paswan, Mahendra Mandal and Babu Lal Mandal were recovered from the place of occurrence, which is near the house of Parmeshwar Thakur. The Investigating Officer has supported this aspect of the matter, so it cannot be said that it was the police party which had for no reason opened fire on a peaceful gathering of persons. The Magistrate who was on duty, P.W. 18 was deputed in village Bhatsimar Tola Baluaha to maintain law and order. It is apparent that there was danger and apprehension of breach of peace which led to deputation of police force in the village. 10. P.W. 18 was injured during the occurrence and after receiving injuries and trying to control the mob he had ordered firing, which resulted in the death of six persons. The firing took place in two installments. It is apparent that there was danger and apprehension of breach of peace which led to deputation of police force in the village. 10. P.W. 18 was injured during the occurrence and after receiving injuries and trying to control the mob he had ordered firing, which resulted in the death of six persons. The firing took place in two installments. On the first occasion, the police after firing, tried to disperse the mob, however, the mob was determined and to continue to create havoc and began to brick-bat on the police personnel, which resulted in issuance of the second order to fire. In this case, the District Magistrate, the Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Divisional Officer came to the place of occurrence to make an enquiry regarding the occurrence and have supported the prosecution version. P.W. 10 is the police personnel who was posted to maintain law and order at the time when the occurrence had taken place. He supports the prosecution version of the occurrence and has stated that the mob had attacked the house of the informant damaging his fence and had assaulted the police personnel which resulted in firing on behalf of the police personnel in order to disperse the crowd. The police personnel examined in this case are P.Ws. 6, 10, 13, 14 and 18 who have stated that the Magistrate resorted to fire as it appeared that they would have been attacked and killed by the mob. 11. After considering the aforesaid evidence which has come in this case, it would appear that this is an unfortunate case where members of a particular political party under the influence of mob mentally attacked the house of the informant, which led to firing by the police personnel leading to unnecessary loss of life. 12. The occurrence has taken place about three decades ago and as such, this Court does not think it proper to send the appellants back to jail to undergo their sentence. Therefore, the appeals are dismissed upholding the conviction and further ordering the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 300/- each by way of fine to be deposited within a period of four months of valid service of notice on them failing which they would have to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The appellants will be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds only after depositing the fine. 13. 300/- each by way of fine to be deposited within a period of four months of valid service of notice on them failing which they would have to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The appellants will be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds only after depositing the fine. 13. These appeals are thus, dismissed with the aforesaid alteration in sentence. Appeals dismissed.