Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 54 (PAT)

Ram Ashray Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-01-12

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
JUDGMENT Mandhata Singh, J.-Fard-bayan of one Kalimullah Khan has been based for First Information Report which in brief is that land dispute was prevailing in between the parties since last ten years, a case was also pending in Court. In the morning of 08.4.1988 accused Mishri Singh and Jawahar Singh were getting cut palm trees leaves standing over the disputed land, same was informed by Md. Salimullah, thereafter the informant along with his father in-law Hakim Md. Zial Islam Khan went there, objected them for not cutting palm leaves. Mishri Singh re-acting thereon abused him, exhorted ‘Jan Se Mar Do Sale Ko’ responding thereon this appellant Ram Ashray Singh along with Bulkan Singh, Bhagwat Singh, Champak Lal Singh, Suraj Singh, Bhikhari Singh and Bisu Singh appeared from a Maize field the place of their hiding armed with farsa and lathi. Surrounded the informant and his father in-law. They (informant and his father in-law) managed to run away, but this appellant Ram Ashray Singh succeeded to give a farsa blow on head of the father in- law of the informant. He (informant’s father in-law) received injury and fell down thereafter, all the accused persons assaulted him by means of lathi, fists and slaps. Akhtar Khan, Md. Yusuf Khan, Md. Islam Khan, Mohan Paswan, Biku Paswan, Bhuneshwar Rai and others came there. For accused Jawahar Singh, it is said that he took away Rs. 803/- from the pocket of informants father in-law. 2. After cognizance, trial commenced and ended in conviction and sentence to this appellant for the offences under Sections 307, 326 and 148 of the I.P.C., but sentence is single for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. 3. In all fourteen (14) witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW 1 Ram Gati Rai, PW 2 Meghan Mahto, PW 3 Md. Salimullah Khan younger brother of the informant, PW 4 Suraj Singh, PW 5 Shankar Singh, PW 6 Hakim Md. Zial Islam Khan victim of the case, PW 7 Raj Narayan Singh, PW 8 Baijnath Rai, PW 9 Mohan Paswan, PW 10 Md. Yusuf Khan, PW 11 Nand Kishore Rai, PW 12 Md. Akhtar Khan, PW 13 Dr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh and PW 14 Kashi Prasad Singh. Of them PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 are tendered witnesses to state nothing concerning taking place of the incident. PW s- 7, 11 and 14 are formal witnesses. Yusuf Khan, PW 11 Nand Kishore Rai, PW 12 Md. Akhtar Khan, PW 13 Dr. Vishwanath Pratap Singh and PW 14 Kashi Prasad Singh. Of them PWs-1, 2, 4 and 5 are tendered witnesses to state nothing concerning taking place of the incident. PW s- 7, 11 and 14 are formal witnesses. PW 13 is doctor who examined the victim Hakim Md. Zial Islam Khan. Rest of the witnesses are the material witnesses to corroborate the prosecution case. 4. Exhibit-1 is fard-bayan of the informant, Exhibit-1/1 his signature, Exhibit1/2 different signatures, Exhibit-2 is formal F.I.R., Exhibit-3 is injury report of the victim, case diary is marked as Exhibit-4 is not allowed, Exhibit-5 is protest petition, Exhibit-6 is also protest petition, Exhibit-7 is Title Suit No. 51 of 1980, Exhibit-8 is order sheet. Exhibit-9 is charge sheet, Exhibit -10 is certified copy of order sheet. 5. PW 6 is victim of the case has appeared to state land dispute in between the parties, quarrel on the point of cutting of palm trees leaves and blow of farsa by the appellant that is corroborated by doctor PW 13. Other witnesses are there also namely PW s-3, 8, 9, 10 and 12 to state quarrel and assault by the appellant. 7. The learned amicus curaie rightly insisted not to doubt the observation of the trial Court about conviction of the appellant for the offences under Sections 326, 307 and 148 of the I.P.C. There could be some dispute about conviction under both the offences viz. Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C., but sentence is only for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. that is there to meet the ends of justice. 8. Now the quantum of sentence is stressed for minimizing the same to any party to the period undergone even. On this point, submission on behalf of the learned amicus curaie is that land dispute was there in between the parties, there was no preparation from earlier rather the incident of cutting of palm trees leaves led for quarrel in between the parties in which also a single blow was allegedly given by the appellant and ultimately parties resolved their differences by compromising the same. Apart from it, incident took place in the year 1988 and decided by trial Court on 08.9.1999, appeal is flied in the year 1999 and is being heard in the year 2012. 9. Apart from it, incident took place in the year 1988 and decided by trial Court on 08.9.1999, appeal is flied in the year 1999 and is being heard in the year 2012. 9. No doubt, in non-compoundable cases compromise is of no avail on the point of conviction, but relevant for taking a lenient view on the point of sentence, on that view the sentence may be minimized to the period of one year. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed on the point of sentence only that is modified and minimized to the period of one year rigorous imprisonment. Conviction is affirmed. He (appellant) is exonerated from the liability of fine imposed by the trial Court also. Accordingly, the bail bond of the appellant is cancelled and he is directed to surrender in the Court below to serve the rest sentence. Trial Court is directed to take initiative for arrest of the appellant for serving the rest period of sentence. 11. Let a copy of the first page and last page of this order be handed over to the learned amicus curiae for needful. 12. Office is directed to send the record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court. Appeal partly allowed.