Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1595 (PAT)

Bhagwat Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-11-29

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT (ORAL) Smt. S.A Khan, J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 271 of 2000 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 273 of 2000. Nobody appears for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 259 of 2000. Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh is appointed as amicus curiae in this case. Counsel for the State is present. 2. These three appeals have been disposed by a common judgment passed by the trial Court. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 271 of 2000 and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 273 of 2000 submits that he has information to state that Bhagwat Rai, appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 259 of 2000 has died during pendency of the case. The trial Court is directed to ascertain this fact. In case the trial Court comes to the conclusion that Bhagwat Rai has died, the appeal against him would abate, if not he will be covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in these appeals. 3. The appellants have been found guilty under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5.000/- each. in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year. They have also been sentenced to undergo RI. for two years under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants Roop Lal Rai, Dinesh Rai and Sheolal Rai have further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Bhagwat Rai has been convicted under Section 307/109 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence of punishment has been passed. 4. I may mention at the very outset that the judgment delivered by the trial Court has not discussed or analyzed the evidence and the appellants were found guilty by a cryptic judgment. 5. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that Laxmi Rai who was walking along with his wife and minor son aged about 12 years, was assaulted on 3.6.1991 near Durga Asthan Chowk at the R.P.F. Colony. 5. Shortly stated the prosecution case is that Laxmi Rai who was walking along with his wife and minor son aged about 12 years, was assaulted on 3.6.1991 near Durga Asthan Chowk at the R.P.F. Colony. He instituted his Jardbeyan on 4.6.1991 at the hospital alleging therein that at about 10.30 in the morning while he was crossing the Chowk to take his son for treatment the appellants surrounded him and assaulted with an iron rod. He received injuries on his hands legs and back etc. It is further stated that his wife and son ran away and hid themselves behind one of the houses in the colony and watched the entire episode. It is alleged against Roop Lal that he took away his H.M.T. watch and the cycle was stolen by Sheo Lal Rai. It is said that several witnesses i.e. Ram Chandra Rat Ramakant Rat Mahendra Rai and Sri Narayan Rai have-witnessed the occurrence. The motive for the occurrence is that the appellants have been made accused in a case filed by his wife wherein it is alleged that the appellants had assaulted his wife. Sunaina Devi. 6. The judgment of the case instituted by Sunaina Devi has been marked as Ext. B which would disclose that the reason for the occurrence is a land dispute between the parties. 7. The main issue raised in this case is that there is an unexplained delay in lodging the First Information Report and that the witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. It is further submitted that there are contradictions regarding manner of occurrence in the evidence of the informant his son and wife who have been examined as PWs 2, 3 and 4 in this case. As per the submission on behalf of the appellants the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellants were responsible for stealing the watch and the cycle of the informant. A defence has been raised that this case has been instituted because of previous enmity and that the appellants were not responsible for the injuries inflicted on the informant. 8. PW 1 and PW 7 are formal witnesses who have proved the Jardbeyan and the discharge slip. This Court will begin with the evidence of the doctor. It would appear from perusal of the evidence of PW 5 that there were eight injuries on the person of the informant. 8. PW 1 and PW 7 are formal witnesses who have proved the Jardbeyan and the discharge slip. This Court will begin with the evidence of the doctor. It would appear from perusal of the evidence of PW 5 that there were eight injuries on the person of the informant. Injury No.8 has been found to be grievous as it indicates that there was a fracture of the fifth rib of the chest. Thus, it would appear from the injury report, the evidence led in the Court that the informant was in fact brutally attacked and had received several injuries. 9. The question before this Court is whether the appellants could be held responsible for inflicting injuries on Laxmi Rai In the cross-examination the defence has tried to make out a case that infact there was no occasion for Laxmi Rai the informant to pass through Durga Asthan Chowk and that the place of occurrence was a colony which had several houses and shops. which is admitted by all the three witnesses and as such the manner of occurrence as described by the informant is not believable in view of the fact that the independent witnesses have not come forward to support the prosecution version. He denies that there is a case in the Court of Munsif regarding the land dispute but subsequently admits that there is a dispute between the parties. According to the informant, he was in semi conscious state after receiving the injuries and, therefore he was only able to give his fardbeyan on the following day. 10. The evidence of PW 1 would indicate that the explanation given regarding the delay in lodging the First Information Report cannot be held to be satisfactory in view of the fact that the occurrence took place at 10.30 a.m. on 3.6.1991 and the information was instituted on 4.6.1991 at 6 p.m. The injury report does not indicate that the informant was in a semi conscious state or that he was in such a condition that he could not institute a case, therefore the possibility of embellishment by adding the name of the appellants cannot be ruled out by this Court. 11. PW 3 has stated that the place of occurrence is a thickly populated area as there are 50-60 houses and 15-20 shops in the vicinity. 11. PW 3 has stated that the place of occurrence is a thickly populated area as there are 50-60 houses and 15-20 shops in the vicinity. At paragraph 14 he has tried to explain that delay by stating that his father had fainted after receiving injuries and he only gained consciousness on the next day. The evidence of Sunaina Devi, PW 4 is almost identical to the evidence of PW 3. She has tried to cover up the delay in lodging the institution of the First Information Report by stating that her husband was unconscious. The statements of PW 3 and PW 4 contradicts the evidence of informant, who does not claim that he was unconscious after receiving the injuries in the First Information Report or in Court. It is also stated. by both these witnesses that blood had oozed out because of the injuries inflicted by the miscreants and had stained not only the clothes worn by the informant but had also fallen on the ground, where the occurrence took place. 12. The evidence of PWs 3 and 4 may be considered and read along with the evidence of the Investigating Officer in this case, PW 6. According to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, Sunaina Devi or her son had not presented the blood stained clothes to him. In fact he has stated that if they had given the blood stained clothes, he would have definitely seized the clothes and the blood stained mud from the place of occurrence. Regarding the story of theft, the Investigating Officer had stated that PW 3 had not stated that before him that his father had his cycle with him, thus destroying the prosecution version that a theft took place in which the cycle of the informant was stolen. He has also denied that the witnesses have stated that Bhagwat Rai had given the order and after the informant had fallen down had stated that the man is dead and that is why they left the place of occurrence. In fact the case as made out in Court was not the case which was presented by the witnesses at the time of their examination under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In fact the case as made out in Court was not the case which was presented by the witnesses at the time of their examination under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It may be considered here that the prosecution version that the informant was unconscious and, therefore, could not give his fardbeyan till 4.6.1991 is not supported by the doctor's report. The injuries accordingly to the doctor were abrasions, lacerated wounds and bruises on the arms and legs. There is no injury on the head which gives rise to a possibility of concussion. At the most, it may be said that the informant was suffering from shock after he was assaulted. 13. In view of the discussions above, this Court concludes that although the Court cannot disbelieve that the informant had received injuries, but the delay in lodging the First Information Report becomes doubtful with respect to the implication of these appellants. In the result, this Court allows this appeal by giving the appellants benefit of doubt. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. Appeals allowed.