Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 246 (PAT)

Bachai Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-02-09

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh. J. - fardbeyan of one Shobhoo Ram, PW 3 of the case has been made basis for the FIR which in brief is that there was shradh Ceremony in the family of informant after the death of the informants sister-in-law (bhabhi). After the dinner, guests and relatives came out from the house and were washing their hand in the lane. The same was opposed rather objected after appearance of accused-appellants. Bachai Ram and Sachai Ram. They were armed with lathi abused and asked as why they were washing their hand in lane. That was explained as due to the ceremonial function, they were washing their hand in the lane but was not to their satisfaction. They continued with their abuse rather accused Budhu Ram, Sahati Ram, Bihari Ram, Syam Narain Ram, Barhu Ram, Mahendra Ram, Lalmuni Ram, Teju Ram, Paltu Ram, Sheonath Ram, Ram Sewak Ram, Chhotu Ram, Badri Ram, Basantu Ram also came. 2. Budhu Ram was armed with farsa and rest were armed with lathi Family members of the informant also gathered. Further, it is said that on instigation of Bechai Ram and Sachai Ram all the accused persons started to assault the informant and others by their respective arms. It is specified that Bechai Ram, Sachai Ram, Badri Ram and Chhotu Ram assaulted the deceased Nathuni Ram. His nephew was assaulted by accused Budhu Ram when he came to save the informant. He fell down after receiving the injury on his head. Thereafter, accused Sahati Ram, Bihari Ram, Shyam Narain Ram, Barhu Ram and Mahendra Ram also assaulted him with lathi. 3. For Lalmuni Ram and Teju Ram, it is said that they assaulted the informant by means of lathi. For rest of the accused persons namely Lalmuni Ram, Paltu Ram, Sheonath Ram, Ram Sewak Ram and Basantu Ram. it is said that they assaulted the son and daughter-in-law of informant and wife of Adhar Ram, After receiving injuries informant fell down so he could not see the later part of the occurrence. After leaving of accused persons the place of occurrence informant went to Police Station along with Nathuni Ram (deceased). Muna Ram, Sarjoo Ram, Lilawati Devi, Adhar Ram and Sanichari Devi, thereafter statement was given on his behalf. 4. After leaving of accused persons the place of occurrence informant went to Police Station along with Nathuni Ram (deceased). Muna Ram, Sarjoo Ram, Lilawati Devi, Adhar Ram and Sanichari Devi, thereafter statement was given on his behalf. 4. After concluding the trial, the case is ended in conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 147 and 304 Part II of the IPC. 5. In all, 11 witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are PW 1 Sri Ram, PW 2 Ramadhar Ram, PW 3 Sobhu Ram, informant of the case PW 4 Saryoo Ram, PW 5 Shanichari Devi, PW 6 Lilawati Devi, PW 7 Muni Ram, PW 8 Sundra Devi, PW 9 Ishtia Karba, PW 10 Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh and PW 11 Dr. Radhika Mohan Saran, Ext.1 is FIR. Ext.2 injury report and Ext.3 Post-mortem Report. A single witness is examined on behalf of the defence to get exhibited the FIR of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 5 of 1987 as Exhibit-A. Exhibit-B is certified copy of statement of Medical Officer in G.R. Case No. 148 of 1987. Exhibit-C is certified copy of order dated 09.03.1989 to 07.04.1989 to show initiation of a proceeding under Section 107. Cr PC. Exhibit- C/l is certified copy of order passed under Section 145, Cr PC proceeding and Exhibit-D is judgment in Cr. Case No. 95 of 1996. These documents are to show that enmity was there in between the parties and the incident did not take place in the manner as averred in the FIR and stated by the witnesses. Enmity was there in between the parties is not denied in the case but it cuts both ways either for false implication or reason for taking place of the incident. Further. Ext. B is certified copy of statement of Doctor examined in the said counter case namely. Chainpur P.S. Case No. 05 of 1987 that some of the accused persons had also received injuries, so the manner in which alleged incident is said to be taken place may not be believed. Same was raised in the Court below also and that has rightly been answered that certified copy of statement cannot be accepted for injuries to accused persons of this case. For its acceptance, examination of Doctor and remaining of injury report is required which is lacking. 6. Of prosecution witnesses, PW 10 and PW 11 are doctors. Same was raised in the Court below also and that has rightly been answered that certified copy of statement cannot be accepted for injuries to accused persons of this case. For its acceptance, examination of Doctor and remaining of injury report is required which is lacking. 6. Of prosecution witnesses, PW 10 and PW 11 are doctors. Of them, PW 10 examined the deceased while he was alive and PW 11 after his death while conducted post-mortem. PW 8 states that she did not watch the incident has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but of no avail as nothing has appeared in her cross-examination. PW 1 has not fully supported the prosecution case but states about taking place of the incident without naming assailants. For that purposes only, his evidence can be read or accepted. 7. All rest of the witnesses are categorically stating about taking place of the incident and causing of assault by the accused-appellants to deceased Nathuni Ram. They have been doubted on the point that they are not constant on the point that all the four caused injuries on the person of deceased on same part of his body. FIR is clear enough that all the four namely. Bechai Ram, Sachai Ram, Badri Ram and Chhotu Ram assaulted the deceased by means of lathi PW 2 and PW 3 are stating about causing of injuries by Bechai Ram and Sachai Ram only while rest are stating injuries by all the four. No doubt. PW 5 states about injury caused by one Ram Sewak also and not by Chhotu. 8. Further contradiction on the point of part of the body where injuries were caused is also pointed out that is either on stomach or chest that is by top of the lathi or only by lathi Such contradictions are natural when number of accused-appellants is 14 and that number on behalf of the informant is not so lesser. As about not naming Badri Ram and Chhotu Ram by PW 2 and PW 3, can be said only missing in naming them. Same is for PW 5 about not naming Chhotu. Moreover, same was raised and discussed by the trial Court in right direction with no mistake or infirmity. As about not naming Badri Ram and Chhotu Ram by PW 2 and PW 3, can be said only missing in naming them. Same is for PW 5 about not naming Chhotu. Moreover, same was raised and discussed by the trial Court in right direction with no mistake or infirmity. On the point of sentence also care has been taken and only five years and one year are awarded respectively for the offence under Sections 304 Part II and 147 of the IPC. 9. Accordingly, this criminal appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.10.1999 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Bhabua in Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1988/201 of 1997 is hereby affirmed. 10. Bail bond and sureties furnished on behalf of the appellants is cancelled. They are directed to surrender to serve the punishment (sentence) and trial Court is also directed to take effective initiatives for their arrest. 11. Let copy of the first page and last page of the judgment be handed over to the learned amicus curiae. 12. Office is directed to send the record along with copy of this judgment to the trial Court. Appeal dismissed.