Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1665 (PAT)

Chandradhar Rai v. State of Bihar

2012-12-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
ORAL JUDGMENT S.A. Khan, J. The appellant Deo Kumar Rai has been found guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. He has further been found guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years. It was ordered that both the sentences shall run concurrently. Appellants Chandradhar Rai and Jag NaRaian Singh have been found guilty under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years. 2. The prosecution has been instituted by Kedar Singh, father of the injured Ramanand Singh and deceased Ram Jee Singh on 25.8.1993 at about 4:30 p.m. alleging therein that he alongwith his sons were uprooting the paddy seeds for the purposes of transplanting them, when the accused persons came armed with rifle, pistol and lathi and tried to stop them from uprooting the paddy seeds. It is said that the appellants began to abuse the informant and his sons and asked them to vacate the field as it belonged to them. The informant’s son claimed that the land belonged to him and refused to leave the field. It is alleged that Deo Kumar Rai fired which hit Ram Jee Singh on the back, Chandradhar Rai and Jag Narain Singh inflicted lathi blows on Ramanand Singh. After the firing took place, the appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. 3. The case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for the purposes of trial. The Trial Court has come to a conclusion that Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 304 part II of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable in the facts of this case. This Court agrees with the reasoning of the Trial Court regarding this aspect of the matter which would be apparent from the discussions which follows. 4. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that the land in question had not been partitioned between the appellants and the family of Kedar Singh, both coming from the common ancestors, inasmuch as Kedar Singh and the father of Deo Kumar Rai are brothers. 4. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that the land in question had not been partitioned between the appellants and the family of Kedar Singh, both coming from the common ancestors, inasmuch as Kedar Singh and the father of Deo Kumar Rai are brothers. It is admitted on behalf of the appellants that a title suit had been filed by Deo Kumar Rai and that the lands stands in the name of the father of Deo Kumar Rai i.e. Paleeta Singh. It is also their case that Kedar Singh and Ramanand Singh had assaulted Deo Kumar Rai during he said occurrence for which he has instituted a complaint case and produced an injury report by a private doctor indicating that Deo Kumar Rai was injured during the occurrence. Therefore, even according to the defence, it is admitted that an occurrence took place on 25.8.1993. 5. In this case it is important to refer to the evidence of the informant, P.W. 4, the injured, Ramanand Singh, the doctors, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9. The witnesses named in the First Information Report have not been examined as it has been stated on behalf of Kedar Singh that they have been gained over by the appellants. The prosecution has produced three witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 to emphasize that an occurrence had taken place in which Deo Kumar Rai had opened fire as a result of which Ram Jee Singh was injured. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are sons of Ram Jee Singh. This Court is not emphasizing on the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 as it appears that they were not named in the First Information Report. However, they have supported that an occurrence as described by the informant. 6. The evidence of P.W. 4, the informant is that he was in his field uprooting the paddy seeds when he saw the appellants coming towards the field. The appellants abused the informant and his two sons and asked them to vacate the field as they had no right to uproot the paddy seeds which had supposedly been sowed by Deo Kumar Rai. The informant and his sons protested which led to firing and assault on Ramanand Singh. It is admitted that Prakash Singh was the father of Paleeta Singh, Shravan Singh and the informant Kedar Singh. The informant and his sons protested which led to firing and assault on Ramanand Singh. It is admitted that Prakash Singh was the father of Paleeta Singh, Shravan Singh and the informant Kedar Singh. According to the informant there had been no partition of their joint family property. It has been admitted that the name of Paleeta Singh has been entered by mistake in the Khatiyan, Deo Kumar Singh had filed Title Suit No. 3/1992 which was pending in the Court of the Munsif when the occurrence is said to have taken place. According to the informant’s case after Ram Jee Singh received injuries he was taken to the local doctor i.e. Dr. Lal Babu who bandaged Ram Jee Singh and referred him to Gaya hospital. From Gaya hospital Ram Jee Singh was taken to P.M.C.H., Patna where he received treatment. 7. The injured P.W. 5, Ramanand Singh has supported the case of the informant, claiming that he alongwith Ram Jee Singh were injured in the occurrence. He has specifically stated that after receiving treatment at P.M.C.H., Patna, Ram Jee Singh was taken to Delhi for further treatment. Thereafter he returned home where he died. It is said that the deceased Ram Jee Singh had been examined and had given his statement in Patna before the Investigating Officer, Pirbahore Police Station. It may be noted here that this statement has not been brought on record. P.W. 5 also produced four X-Rays to indicate and support the injuries on the person of Ram Jee Singh which had not been brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer before trial. Ramanand Singh has also supported the case of Kedar Singh regarding the lands in question giving details regarding the Khata and plot number of the lands. 8. On the basis of the aforesaid oral statement, it is apparent that the appellants had gone to the field i.e. Plot Number 4375 to stop the informant and his sons from uprooting the paddy seeds/transplanting them which led to firing injuring Ram Jee Singh. It is also apparent that there was a bona fide land dispute between the parties regarding the land on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. 9. This Court will now turn to the evidence of the doctor who examined Ram Jee Singh i.e. P.W. 8. It is also apparent that there was a bona fide land dispute between the parties regarding the land on which the occurrence is said to have taken place. 9. This Court will now turn to the evidence of the doctor who examined Ram Jee Singh i.e. P.W. 8. He was examined at P.M.C.H. on 25.8.1993 and following injury has been noted: “Lacerated wound on mid dorsal region at the level of dorsal ten and twelth dorsal. The wound was 2” in diameter. Depth was not done. The doctor has opined on the basis of the X-Rai that multiple pellets were seen and there were fracture of 11th dorsal vertebra.” He did not find any sign of charring or blackening in or around the wound. It is thus, apparent that Ram Jee Singh was injured on the back by a fire arm. The post mortem examination conducted Ara Sadar Hospital on 11.2.1994 indicates that Ram Jee Singh died due to sores on his body. The doctor found one ulcer over sacral region size 4” x 4” x Bone Deep (dictionary describes sacral as a triangular bone composed of fused vertebrae wedged between two innominate bones, so as to form the keystone of the pelvic arch). One ulcer over right gluteal region size 4” x 3”x muscle deep. One ulcer over right Trochanteric region size 2” x 1½” x muscle deep. One ulcer near left Iliac Crest size 2” x 1½” x muscle deep. One ulcer over Lateral side of left upper thigh size 3” x 2” x bone deep. All the wounds were found packed with gauze and were found to be partially healed. The cause of death has been defined due to septicemia because of above injuries as a result chronic debility (sic). Perhaps it should be read as diabetes. It is apparent that Ram Jee Singh died after five months of the occurrence, as a result of septicemia. None of the ulcers seem to be around the 11th vertebra i.e. the area of injury rather they are on various parts of the body, such as gullet, trachea and rib chest. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the death cannot be connected to the injury inflicted by Deo Kumar Rai. None of the ulcers seem to be around the 11th vertebra i.e. the area of injury rather they are on various parts of the body, such as gullet, trachea and rib chest. Thus, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that the death cannot be connected to the injury inflicted by Deo Kumar Rai. The aforesaid facts and discussions lead to the conclusion that the appellants are guilty under Section 307 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Deo Kumar Rai is also guilty under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 10. The occurrence took place in 1993 and, therefore, it is argued that the Court should not send the appellants back to jail rather ask them to pay compensation to the heirs of the deceased in lieu of the offences alleged. This Court accordingly, finds that the sentence undergone is sufficient in the facts of this case to meet the ends of justice, provided the appellant Deo Kumar Rai pays a sum of Rs. 7,000/- to the heirs of Ram Jee Singh which should be received by the informant Kedar Singh, failure to pay the said amount would lead to imprisonment for one year. Appellant Chandradhar Rai was about 70 years of age in the year 2001, the learned counsel does not have instruction as to whether he is dead or alive. However, both together i.e. Chandradhar Rai and Jag NaRaian Singh would be required to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the heirs of Ram Jee Singh through Kedar Singh, the informant of this case. The Trial Court shall issue notices to the appellants as well as the informant so that the said compensation may be deposited in the Trial Court to be withdrawn by Kedar Singh or the heirs of Ram Jee Singh who have been examined as P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 in the trial. The payment should be made within a period of three months on valid service of notice. 11. These appeals are dismissed with the aforesaid modification of sentence. The appellants will only be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in these cases after depositing the compensation amount.