Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 561 (PAT)

Ram Sewak Das v. State of Bihar

2012-04-03

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
Mandhata Singh, J. – Statement/Fardbeyan of Jamun Das P.W.7 has been made basis for the F.I.R. which, in short, is that in the intervening night of 23/24 of July, 1992 at about 12.30 AM the informant arose hearing alarm/hue and cry of his brother Shyamdeo Das and sister-in-law Domani Devi, came out of the room along with his wife, saw accused appellant Ram Sewak Das, Dhrub Das and Tahal Das in his veranda assaulting his brother Shyamdeo Das and sister-in-law, caught wrist of accused Dhrub Das with dagger which he was intending to use. On his attack he left his hand, took a Danda with a view to defend himself. Accused appellant Ram Sewak Das hurled a bomb on him causing injuries on his head, both hands and back. Some one of accused persons was calling his nephew Ramashray Das but he did not come out. 2. Difference in between the parties was on the point of calling accused appellant’s mother Dyne. 3. The trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellant only for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. 4. In all seven witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Ram Ashray Das, P.W.2 Ram Shresth Das, P.W.3 Feku Das, P.W. 4 Domani Devi, P.W.5 Shiv Narain Mahto one of the I.Os. of the case who has investigated later part of the investigation, P.W.6 Shyamdeo Das and P.W.7 Jamun Das informant of the case. A witness also is examined on behalf of defence who is Ram Das D.W.1. 5. Exhibit-1 is signature of witnesses on seizure list and a report from Forensic Science Laboratory of K.N.Sinha, Senior Scientific Officer (Explosive), Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna. Exhibit-2 series are signature and writing of injury reports and exhibit-3 is sanction order for prosecution against this accused appellant. 6. Allegation about injuries caused to informant’s brother and sister-in-law after entering their room is not believed in the case was the part of evidence of witnesses is not necessary to be looked into. This Court concerns with the material on the point of involvement of accused appellant in hurling a bomb and if really then it hit the informant. 7. Prosecution case is to the effect that after receiving injury, matter was informed to the Police. This Court concerns with the material on the point of involvement of accused appellant in hurling a bomb and if really then it hit the informant. 7. Prosecution case is to the effect that after receiving injury, matter was informed to the Police. Injured were examined by different doctors, remaining splinters collected (seized) by the I.O. sent to concerned department for its examination if were of explosion. 8. On this point (hurling of bomb and injury to P.W.7) P.W.1 states to come out from his room and saw his uncle Jamun Das in injured condition. P.W.2 states about presence of accused persons at the place of occurrence and exploding bomb by this accused appellant which injured Jamun Das P.W.7 of the case. There can be suspicion that really he was an eye witness of the case, his attention has been drawn by the defence in paragraph 6 of the cross-examination in which he states that to Darogaji he had stated that he was not an eye witness of the case. 9. Another witness P.W.3 states about hurling of bomb by this accused appellant on Jamun Das which hit him also. To doubt his statement paragraph 4 of his cross examination it is pointed out by learned counsel for the accused appellant which is to the effect that after a month of the incident his statement was recorded if cannot be doubted then Jamun Das is examined in the case by a doctor to corroborate his injuries by explosive substance and on the point of explosion of bomb, a report from the concerned department was called for that really sign of explosion remained on the place of occurrence but submission of learned counsel for the accused appellant is that there is no admissible evidence/material in the case to believe the explosion or injuries by explosion of bomb. This part will be discussed later. First it is to consider that what other witnesses are stating on this point. 10. In this regard P.W.4 is the next witness. She states about causing of injuries by accused persons to her and her husband coming of his Bhaisur P.W.7 Jamun Das then this accused appellant hurled a bomb aiming him which hit him also, he became unconscious and accused persons left the place. 11. P.W.5 is one of the I.Os of the case but his investigation concerned later part of investigation not the initial one. 11. P.W.5 is one of the I.Os of the case but his investigation concerned later part of investigation not the initial one. He may be discussed if found relevant on any of the points raised in the case. 12. P.W.6 is Shyamdeo Das. He states about coming of accused persons Ram Sewak Das, Dhrub Das and Tahal Das. He is further stating about causing of injury by Ram Tahal Das and Dhurb Das to him and his wife, thereafter coming of Jamun to save them and then only bomb was thrown by accused appellant. P.W.7 is injured and informant of the case. He also states about hurling of bomb by accused appellant and receiving of injuries. 13. Injuries of P.W.7 if really are caused by explosion of bomb and bomb really if was exploded is doubted on behalf of accused appellant pointing out that all the witnesses are either family members of the informant victim of the case or his relations, enmity was existing there in between both the parties on the point that mother of accused appellant was being blamed witch and there is no reliable evidence in the case, specifically it is said that a report was needed from Forensic Science Laboratory that seized remains (splinters) collected from the place of occurrence was sent to it, examined there and found remains/splinters of explosive substance. No doubt a report of K.N.Sinha, Senior Scientific Officer (Explosive), Forensic Science Laboratory, Bihar, Patna is filed in the case but is not proved by examining its author or authorized persons under the Evidence Act or exempted to be proved under Sections 293 and 494 Cr.P.C. In absence of a valid report conviction under Section 3 or 4 of Explosive Substances Act is not liable to sustain. 14. Next offence for which this accused appellant is convicted is Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Injury is specifically alleged to be caused by bomb thrown by this accused appellant, no other assault is caused. So, if prosecution succeeds to establish that injury really was caused by explosive substance then only conviction awarded in the case can be justified. According to the prosecution, after receiving injuries P.W.7 was taken first to Government Hospital, Singhwara then to DMCH, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga and injury report was issued from Govt. Hospital, Singhwara. So, if prosecution succeeds to establish that injury really was caused by explosive substance then only conviction awarded in the case can be justified. According to the prosecution, after receiving injuries P.W.7 was taken first to Government Hospital, Singhwara then to DMCH, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga and injury report was issued from Govt. Hospital, Singhwara. A report is also there issued by a doctor who is not examined in the case and according to learned counsel for accused appellant, any report cannot be accepted for nature of injury and weapon used without examination of the doctor who really examined the victim which is lacking in the case. That is followed by examination of witnesses in the case who comes either from the family of P.W.7 victim of the case or relation and P.W.7 was inimical to the appellant. So, the conclusion of trial for conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or Sections ¾ of the Explosive Substances Act is not liable to sustain. 15. Taking into consideration the evidence on record and the observations made above, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.11.1999 and 26.11.1999 passed in Sessions Trial no. 120/93 is set aside, appellant is acquitted of the charges leveled for exonerating the liability of fine imposed by the trial court. As the appellant is on bail, he shall stand discharged from the liability of his bail bond and set at liberty. 16. Let a copy of judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.