Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 579 (PAT)

Chandrika Ram v. State of Bihar

2012-04-05

MANDHATA SINGH

body2012
MANDHATA SINGH, J.:–Statement/Fardbeyan of Pramod Kumar Singh informant of the case has been made basis for F.I.R. which, in short, is that he was posted in market committee at Sadha, Chapra as Guard, in the intervening night of 12/13.9.1998 about 2.00 AM was sleeping at his veranda in front of room in the compound of market committee. This accused appellant Chandrika Ram came and stabbed by means of Chhura on informant’s stomach with intention to kill him. He raised alarm upon which his father Raj Nath Singh, villagers Satya Narain Singh and Pashupati Singh who were also sleeping nearby, came to his rescue thereupon this accused appellant fled towards west. He was identified in the light of electricity bulb in veranda. His father had come in connection with his treatment and co-villagers to see Circus. 2. Motive behind the incident is said the habit of this accused appellant to urinate by the side of informant’s room which was objected and previous evening also that was objected. There was some altercation in which threatening was given by this accused appellant to kill. After receiving injury the informant came to Police Station from where he was taken to Hospital. Statement/Fardbeyan of informant was recorded at Hospital by Officer Incharge of Chapra Mufassail Police Station on 13.9.1998 at about 4.00 AM. 3. The trial ended in conviction and sentence to accused appellant for the offence under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. In all 11 witnesses are examined in the case and they are P.W.1 Satya Narain Singh, P.W.2 Yogendra Bhagat, P.W.3 Raj Nath Singh father of the informant, P.W.4 Pashupati Nath Singh, P.W.5 Chitra Singh Bahadur, P.W.6 Ram Naresh Singh, P.W.7 Shailendra Singh, P.W.8 Pramod Kumar Singh informant and victim of the case, P.W.9 Kamalapati Singh I.O. of the case, P.W.10 Dr. Nawal Kishore Prasad Saha and P.W.11 Babua Nand Dwivedi a formal witness. 5. P.Ws. 2 and 5 are employees in the office of market committee. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are witnesses to state that they came to know about the incident after its taking place. So, they can be said hearsay witnesses. P.W.9 is I.O. of the case and P.W.10 is doctor who examined the informant victim and found the injury serious caused by pointed weapon. P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 are claiming themselves as eye witnesses. P.W.8 is victim himself. P.Ws. So, they can be said hearsay witnesses. P.W.9 is I.O. of the case and P.W.10 is doctor who examined the informant victim and found the injury serious caused by pointed weapon. P.Ws 1, 3 and 4 are claiming themselves as eye witnesses. P.W.8 is victim himself. P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4 in court are stating to watch the incident of stabbing also including fleeing of accused appellant from place of occurrence. Fleeing of accused appellant from place of occurrence and his identification is in corroboration of their statement made before the I.O. also but watching the incident of stabbing was not in its corroboration. So, attention of all the witnesses is drawn on the point of their watching that of the I.O. also. Therefore, this much of the part may be doubted but their evidence on the point of fleeing of accused appellant from the place of occurrence may not be doubted, only for P.W.4 it is said that in court he deposed about fleeing of accused appellant towards west while in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C. that was said south but that is clear from the statement of P.W.8 that direction was south west. So any of the direction cannot be said contradictory. 6. The only witness remains in the case to state the act of real stabbing and he is P.W.8 victim of the case is categorically stating about stabbing by this accused appellant. Paragraph 11 of his cross-examination it elaborated disclosure on this point that this victim was sleeping covering his face by means of a Gamchha. After receiving injury he removed the same and identified this accused appellant who remained staying there for few seconds. 7. Evidence of all these witnesses has been discussed by the trial court taking into consideration their cross-examination also. Therefore, I find no infirmity in the conclusion reached by the trial court in its judgment to convict and sentence the accused appellant. 8. Attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for the accused appellant that accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which is not justified. 8. Attention of this Court is drawn by learned counsel for the accused appellant that accused appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as well as for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code which is not justified. Once the injury is found on external part by pointed weapon which is grievous in nature, section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is applicable but the same was with intention to kill needs something more and that was repetition or knowledge. There is no repetition is the admitted case of the parties and for knowledge, the act of the victim was to be observed. 9. After receiving injury, the victim came in motion, raised alarm, accused appellant stayed there for 2 or 3 seconds could have observed the condition and in the circumstances of the case, could not be observed for knowing the same to death otherwise also the victim informant went to Police Station without any assistance then was brought to Hospital. So, conviction under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code appears not proper. 10. No doubt incident is of the year 1998 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2012 but the trial ended in the year 1999 while accused appellant was in service and for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code only three years’ punishment is awarded with fine also. For lapse of such a long period realisation of fine may not be of much relevance but quantum of sentence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code is reasonable needs no interference. 11. On the observations made above, evidence on record and circumstances of the case, the appeal is partly allowed, judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.1999 and 29.11.1999 in Sessions Trial no. 198 of 1989 for the offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and affirmed for the conviction for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code modifying the sentence to exonerate the accused appellant from the liability of fine. It is made clear that for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code sentence awarded in the case three years remains affirmed. As the appellant is on bail his bail bond is cancelled. It is made clear that for the offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code sentence awarded in the case three years remains affirmed. As the appellant is on bail his bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the court below to serve rest of the sentence. The trial court is directed to take necessary step for taking him into custody. 12. There is no need to observe that accused appellant is entitled for set off the period of sentence undergone by him in course of trial or after conviction till privilege of bail granted by this Court. 13. Let a copy of this judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the court below forthwith.