Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1678 (PAT)

Jichha Singh v. State Of Bihar

2012-12-12

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. Learned Counsel for the appellants submits that Ramji Singh (appellant no. 3) and Ram Anandi Singh (appellant no. 6) have died during the pendency of this appeal, however, the death certificates have not been filed on behalf of the appellants. The Trial Court will get the matter inquired and if it is found that the aforesaid two appellants have died, the appeal against them will abate or else, they would be governed by the judgment and order passed in this appeal. 2. The appellants have been found guilty for the offences under Sections 307 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and have been awarded separate sentence for the offences in question. Appellants Jichha Singh, Ramji Singh and Brijnandan Singh have been awarded sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Appellants Ambika Singh @ Amerika Singh, Dineshwar Singh @ Dinesh Singh, Dukhharan Singh, Ram Jatan Singh, Jai Hind Singh and Siyaram Singh have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. Appellants Ram Anandi Singh and Rameshwar Singh have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years. 3. The occurrence took place on 19th November, 1982 at about 5 PM. It has been alleged by Parmanand Singh that the appellants came variously armed as mentioned in the First Information Report began to assault the informant, when his nephew came to save him, he too was assaulted by the appellants. Specifically, it has been stated that Parmanand Singh was assaulted on the head by the appellant no. 1 Jichha Singh with a saif, Ramji Singh and Brijnandan Singh assaulted him by means of a garasa on the head and arm, Ram Anandi Singh, Jai Hind Singh and Ambika Singh assaulted the informant by means of lathis on various parts of the body. Similarly, it has been specifically alleged that Prabhakar Singh was assaulted by Jichha Singh on the head by means of a saif, Ramji Singh and Brijnandan Singh assaulted him with a garasa while rest of the appellants assaulted him by means of a lathi. The reason for the occurrence is that there is a land dispute and cases pending between Ram Anandi Singh, Jai Hind Singh and the informant, which had led to the said assault. 4. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that there was a free fight between the parties. The reason for the occurrence is that there is a land dispute and cases pending between Ram Anandi Singh, Jai Hind Singh and the informant, which had led to the said assault. 4. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that there was a free fight between the parties. Jichha Singh was injured by a sharp cutting weapon as well as lathi etc. A case was instituted by Rampal Singh in which Parmanand Singh, Prabhakar Singh and Anil Singh have been convicted under Section 148 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas Brijnandan Singh, Sunil Singh, Rajendra Singh, Badri Singh and Navin Singh have been convicted under Sections 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and all the convicts have been sentence to undergo imprisonment for two months. It is, therefore, submitted that the prosecution has not come up with clean hands and stated the correct facts regarding the occurrence. 5. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses, out of which PW 6 Sudhir Kumar has been tendered for cross-examination, PW 7 is the doctor who examined the two injured persons, PW 8 Ram Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case who has conducted the investigation, whereas PW 9 Bashisht Narayan Singh is the Investigating Officer who has submitted the charge sheet. 6. On perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, it would appear that all have supported the prosecution case by stating that the informant and his nephew Prabhakar Singh were assaulted by the appellants. There is some discrepancies in the manner of assault, but this Court finds that these discrepancies would not be fatal to the prosecution as it is impossible for the witnesses to describe the manner in which the 11 appellants would have assaulted PW 4 Prabhakar Singh and PW 5 Parmanand Singh, the informant. 7. It has been argued that PW 2 Badri Singh is the uncle of the informant, whereas PW 3 Brijnandan Singh is the brother of the informant and as such, their evidence should not be relied upon as they are interested witnesses and would obviously support the case of the prosecution. I do not find much substance in this submission inasmuch as it is quite natural that family members would be the persons who would rush to the place of occurrence on hearing the commotion taking place. I do not find much substance in this submission inasmuch as it is quite natural that family members would be the persons who would rush to the place of occurrence on hearing the commotion taking place. Virtually, it appears that the parties have admitted the occurrence, however, they dispute the manner in which it has taken place. 8. The ocular evidence is supported by the Dr. Jamil Akhtar (PW 7), who has found 12 injuries on the person of Parmanand Singh and 11 injuries on the person of Prabhakar Singh. The doctor has held that the injury no. 7 inflicted on Parmanand Singh, which is dislocation of the right elbow joint, is grievous in nature. Similarly, PW 7 has found that injury no. 1 inflicted on Prabhakar Singh is grievous in nature as it is a long cut from the shoulder to the back. The evidence of the doctor indicates that the informant and his nephew were assaulted by the appellants due to the land dispute. 9. It is obvious that the occurrence was not pre-planned or premeditated, but it took place on the spur of the moment when the two parties met on the road near the paddy field of the informant. The fact that there was a free fight between the parties is established by Exhibits A and B and as such, these Court does not find that this is a case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as it is quite obvious that there was no intention on behalf of the parties to kill each other. Therefore, this Court finds that Ramji Singh and Brijnandan Singh would be liable to be convicted under Section 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, whereas the other appellants would be liable to be convicted under Section 324 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. In lieu of the fact that the occurrence has taken place in the year 1982 and almost 30 years have elapsed since the occurrence had taken place, it would not be proper to send the appellants back to jail, besides which, all of them have crossed the age of 60 years. 11. Accordingly, this Court alters the punishment to the period already undergone with a condition that each of the appellants would have to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to Parmanand Singh and Prabhakar Singh. 11. Accordingly, this Court alters the punishment to the period already undergone with a condition that each of the appellants would have to pay Rs. 500/- as compensation to Parmanand Singh and Prabhakar Singh. The said amount should be paid within a period of three months to be deposited in the Trial Court. Failure to pay the said compensation amount would entail the appellants rigorous imprisonment for six months. The informant should be noticed by the Trial Court so that he may withdraw the compensation amount deposited in the Trial Court on his behalf and on behalf of Prabhakar Singh. In case of death of Parmanand Singh, his heirs would be entitled to receive the compensation amount. 11-A. It is clarified that if the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the appellants Ramji Singh and Ram Anandi Singh are dead, they would not be liable to pay the compensation amount. 12. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with the modification in the conviction and sentence. The appellants would be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds only after payment of compensation amount. Appeal dismissed.