Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 965 (PAT)

Raghunath Bhagat v. State of Bihar

2012-07-13

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 17th December, 1999 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 79 of 1993 whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that in the night between 1st/2nd June, 1991, the deceased Jetu Sahani was allegedly assaulted by the appellants as they were aggrieved because they believed that Jetu Sahani had an illicit relationship with Champa Devi, wife of Surendra Bhagat, the brother of the appellants 1 and 2. Appellant Jaylal Bhagat is the son of Champa Devi. 3. The fardbayan was signed by the chowkidar and was recorded by the Officer-in-charge of Siwaipatti Police Station at about 08:45 AM on 2nd June, 1991. 4. The defence is that the deceased Jetu Sahani along with PWs 1 and 4 had entered into the house of Champa Devi in order to commit theft, in the process, Jetu Sahani was caught and assaulted by all the villagers. 5. Altogether, eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution for the purposes of proving the prosecution version regarding the occurrence. I shall begin with the evidence of Dr. M. K. Shrivastava who has been examined as PW 6. The doctor found the mark of fracture on the skull, apart from which, the body of the deceased was covered by bruises on his hands, legs, chest and knee-joint. The right hand of the deceased was also found to be fractured. In all, there were about ten injuries on the person of the deceased. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that the injuries sustained by the deceased would reveal that all the villagers have got together and assaulted the deceased, rather than their being any deliberate attempt by these appellants alone to assault the deceased. 7. PW 1 Musafir Bhagat and PW 4 Prabhu Bhagat are brothers. Their evidence is very similar. The facts that emerges from their evidence is that on hearing alarm, they went to the house of Champa Devi and saw that Jetu Sahani was being assaulted by Raghunath Bhagat and Baijnath Bhagat with sticks. 7. PW 1 Musafir Bhagat and PW 4 Prabhu Bhagat are brothers. Their evidence is very similar. The facts that emerges from their evidence is that on hearing alarm, they went to the house of Champa Devi and saw that Jetu Sahani was being assaulted by Raghunath Bhagat and Baijnath Bhagat with sticks. It is said that Jetu Sahani died and his body was kept at the doorstep and PW 1 who was sent to call their maternal uncle (mama). During cross-examination, these witnesses have explained the relationship between the appellants and themselves. Both belong to a common branch, whereas the father of PWs 1 and 4 and the father of appellants are first cousins. Apparently, there was litigation between them because of a land dispute. Manghi had purchased a plot of land measuring 19 kathas and 5 dhurs, which was sold by PWs 1 and 4 to one Jamuna Prasad, who in turn, sold the land to Prem Chandra Prasad. Therefore, it appears that there was a land dispute between the appellants and PWs 1 and 4. It has been suggested that it is due to this land dispute that the appellants have been made accused in this case. PW 1 further stated in his cross-examination that the occurrence took place in two parts. First part took place at 12 in the night, whereas the second part of the occurrence took place as stated earlier, it is said that at about 4 AM in the morning, it is alleged that Meghu and Ram Chandra were assaulting the deceased Jetu Sahani with bricks. It is said that because of the joint assault by all of them, Jetu Sahani died. 8. PW 2 Bishundeo Ram is the informant of this case. This witness has come only to support the case as made out in the First Information Report. He is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. He has reported the matter because he found a dead body in an injured condition and has not disclosed the source from which he learnt regarding the manner of the occurrence in the First Information Report. 9. PW 3 who claims himself to be the eye-witness to the occurrence has not been examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, which would be apparent from paragraph 8 of the deposition of PW 7 the Investigating Officer. 9. PW 3 who claims himself to be the eye-witness to the occurrence has not been examined by the Investigating Officer during the investigation, which would be apparent from paragraph 8 of the deposition of PW 7 the Investigating Officer. As such, it would appear that the evidence of PW 3 is not of much use to the prosecution. 10. PW 5 Naga Sahani is the brother of the deceased Jetu Sahani. This witness was not present in the village when the occurrence was taking place, which is admitted by him in his examination-in-chief wherein he states that he was at Dimapur in the State of Assam. 11. PW 7 is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the formal First Information Report and his signature on the fardbayan. He has also described the place of occurrence. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that Musafir Bhagat (PW 1) was examined by him during investigation. During investigation, Musafir Bhagat has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence when he heard a commotion and saw that Raghu and Ram Chandra were assaulting the deceased Jetu Sahani with lathis. He denies that PW 1 had stated that the appellants 1 and 2 were also armed with lathis. At paragraph 7, this witness has denied that Bishnudeo Rai had reported to him that these appellants were responsible for the occurrence. Attention of this witness has been drawn to the statement of Prabhu Bhagat. He denied that Prabhu Bhagat had told him that the appellants were assaulting the deceased Jetu Sahani, however, Prabhu Bhagat had not specifically stated that the appellants were assaulting the deceased with lathis. 12. PW 8 is the formal witness who has proved Exhibit-3. 13. The defence has also examined witnesses and produced before the Trial Court two rent receipts which are apparently in favour of Prem Chandra who supposedly purchased the plot from Jamuna Prasad. 14. Counsel for the appellants submits that this Court should not believe the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 because they are enemical to the appellants inasmuch as there is a land dispute pending between the parties, specific details regarding the disputed land and the manner in which it was caused has been stated by both these witnesses. 14. Counsel for the appellants submits that this Court should not believe the evidence of PWs 1 and 4 because they are enemical to the appellants inasmuch as there is a land dispute pending between the parties, specific details regarding the disputed land and the manner in which it was caused has been stated by both these witnesses. The Trial Court has disbelieved the evidence as the certified copy of the sale deed executed by Jamuna Prasad in favour of Ram Chandra Prasad (exhibit-C) was executed on 21.02.1992. It is admitted that 144 proceedings was also initiated for the plots which is the subject matter of the sale deed i.e. plot no. 2026, 2027, 2030 and 2057. It is contended that PWs 1 and 4 were on enemical terms with these appellants and as such they have made out a case especially against these appellants. It is submitted that this Court ought to have considered that Champa Devi had filed a case of theft against Jetu Sahani and PW 4 i.e. Prabhu Bhagat. However, one fact is clear from the evidence of all the witnesses which is that Jetu Sahani was caught inside the house of Champa Devi. It cannot be determined here whether he was caught while he was visiting Champa Devi with whom he was having an affair or whether he was caught on account of the fact that he had gone to commit theft. The glaring truth that emerges is that Jetu Sahani was assaulted by the petitioners and perhaps some others, taking into account the nature of the injuries which were almost on every part of the body of the deceased, which ultimately lead to his untimely death. Thus, the Trial Court after considering all aspects has rightly convicted the appellants for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 15. Considering that almost 20 years have passed since the occurrence had taken place and the appellants 2 and 3 have stayed in custody for almost 10½ months and the appellant no. 1 Raghunath Bhagat has stayed in custody for almost 08 months, this Court dismisses this appeal by altering the sentence to the period already undergone. The appellants are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.