Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 958 (PAT)

Aas Mohammad Ansari v. State of Bihar

2012-07-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
Sheema Ali Khan, J. – There are three sets of appeals preferred against the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22nd December, 1999 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bhabhua in Sessions Trial No. 673 of 1989/134 of 1999 arising out of Bhabhua Police Station Case No. 162 of 1989 and accordingly, they are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the judgment under appeal, the appellants Aas Mohammad Ansari (Cr. Appeal No. 3 of 2000) and Gul Mohammad Ansari (Cr. Appeal No. 16 of 2000) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offences punishable under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The seven appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000 were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years each for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of Gul Mohammad Ansari @ Gullu Mian wherein it has been stated that Gul Mohammad Ansari died on 12th November, 2001. The death certificate has not been annexed to this supplementary affidavit, therefore, as far as Gul Mohammad Ansari is concerned, his appeal would abate subject to the verification by the Trial Court or else the case of Gul Mohammad Ansari would be governed by the judgment which has been delivered on merits in this case. It has also been stated that Sahidul Ansari, appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000 died on 25th June, 2012. The appeal against him would abate subject to the verification by the Trial Court or else he would also be governed by the judgment delivered in this case. 4. The case, as made out in the First Information Report is that on the basis of the written report of Md. Asharfuddin, wherein he has alleged that the accused persons variously armed with farsa, lathi and garasa came to the east-north corner of the paddy field which is the place of occurrence, which was submerged in water. The brother of the informant was draining the water, when Quamuddin Ansari is said to have given him a lathi blow. The others came and began to assault Adrakh Mian, Shaukat Mian, Sagina Bibi, Mustafa and others. The brother of the informant was draining the water, when Quamuddin Ansari is said to have given him a lathi blow. The others came and began to assault Adrakh Mian, Shaukat Mian, Sagina Bibi, Mustafa and others. It is also alleged that Aas Mohammad gave a blow on the head of Lali Mian due to which Lali Mian fell down and then Gul Mohammad gave him a lathi blows on his chest and hands. Lali Mian died in the hospital on the next day of the occurrence. The postmortem was conducted on 15th July, 1989 at 09:30 AM. 5. In this case, altogether 16 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The defence on behalf of the appellants was that there was a dispute with respect to the lands which were water logged, which caused exchange of hot words leading to a free fight between the parties, for which Quamuddin Ansari (appellant no. 6 of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000) had lodged an First Information Report, which has been marked as Exhibit-A. The injuries received by the appellants have been marked as Exhibit-B series. 6. Amongst the persons injured on the side of the defence were Muslim Ansari (appellant no. 3 of Criminal appeal No. 56 of 2000) who received simple injuries, Haidar Ansari @ Haider Ali Ansari (appellant no. 1 of Criminal appeal No. 56 of 2000) who also received simple injury, Quamuddin Ansari (appellant no. 6 of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000) who received several injuries, one of which was grievous injury, on his head as his skull bone was shown to be fractured and Md. Idris who also received grievous injury as his elbow was fractured, apart from which there were three other simple injuries. 7. From the side of the prosecution, PWs 2, 3, 5, 7 and 8 have received injuries which were simple in nature. All these witnesses have explained the manner in which they were assaulted. They admit that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the land which had been recorded as KABRISTAN in the consolidation proceedings. It appears that PW 8 has admitted that there was a “mar-pit” going on between the parties. 8. PW 1 Md. All these witnesses have explained the manner in which they were assaulted. They admit that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the land which had been recorded as KABRISTAN in the consolidation proceedings. It appears that PW 8 has admitted that there was a “mar-pit” going on between the parties. 8. PW 1 Md. Anwar Ali has stated that he was in his field when the occurrence took place and he too was assaulted, although there is no corresponding injury report to support this aspect of the matter. He is also the formal witness to Exhibit-1, written report and the signatures over the seizure list which have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1 respectively. 9. Similarly all the injured witnesses support the occurrence. Some of them admit that there was a dispute between the parties regarding the lands in question. 10. The most important evidence is that of the doctor. PW 15 Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh has proved the injury reports, the injury of the deceased and the other persons. 11. The Investigating Officer Kameshwar Prasad Singh has been examined as PW 16. He too supports the prosecution version inasmuch as he stated that Lali Mian was brought in an injured condition and he was unable to speak, although he also supports the defence raised on behalf of the appellants by admitting that some of the appellants were also injured, for which they had lodged an First Information Report and that the place of occurrence was common in both the cases. Thus, the evidence of PW 9 the informant trying to make out a case in Court that the occurrence did not take place in the village, rather it took place at his DALAAN is not fit to be believed, especially as it also contradicts the case made out in the First Information Report. 12. In conclusion, this Court may say that from the evidence of PWs 1 to 16, which has been discussed in details by the Trial Court and important aspect referred to by this Court in this judgment, leads to the conclusion that there was a free fight between the appellants and the informant side for a piece of land which has been described as a KABRISTAN by the appellants and is disputed by the prosecution witnesses who claim title to the land. The immediate cause of action was that Asharfuddin was releasing water from the paddy field. In ensuing fight, both parties were injured and Lali Mian received an injury on his head by means of a farsa which eventually lead to his death. 13. It has been argued on behalf of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000 that the appellants have remained in custody for about 36 to 45 days. This Court, therefore, dismisses Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2000 with modification in the sentence as already undergone as the occurrence relates to the year 1989, and it would not be proper to send the appellants to jail after a period of 22 years. The appellant Aas Mohammad is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- to the heirs of Lali Mian which should be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of four months from today on valid service of notice by the Trial Court, failing which Aas Mohammad would be required to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. 14. In the result, these three appeals are dismissed with the modification in the sentence. 15. All the appellants are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case except appellant Aas Mohammad Ansari, who will be discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds only after payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- in the Trial Court.