Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 998 (PAT)

Chandrika Mahto v. State of Bihar

2012-07-20

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20th November, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 21st November, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 132 of 1998/134 of 1994 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya. Three accused persons including the two appellants were put on trial, the Trial Court has acquitted Manpi Devi for the charges levelled against her. These two appellants were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but the Trial Court has found and held that these two appellants are guilty for the offences punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for four months. 2. The informant of this case, namely, Urmila Devi (PW 3) has given her statement at the Konch hospital on 13.02.1990 at 09:15 AM for an occurrence which took place at 6 AM. She has narrated that she was sitting in the verandah of her house when Chandrika Mahto came and began to abuse her. Soon thereafter, the wife of Chandrika Devi also came to the place of occurrence and joined her husband in abusing the informant. Chandrika Mahto then gave a lathi blow on the head of the informant. The informant’s mother raised an alarm, whereupon Rameshwar Mahto armed with Farsha and Anil Mahto armed with lathi also came to the place of occurrence and began to assault the informant and her father. Rameshwar Mahto gave a farsa blow to the father of the informant, who fell down after receiving the injury. The reason for the occurrence was with respect to the outlet of the drain water. 3. In this case, altogether three witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The doctor and the Investigating Officer of this case have not been examined in this case. 4. PW 1 Ram Baran Singh is the father of the informant. This witness has supported the prosecution version. He states that the appellants had started abusing his daughter and had assaulted her. When they tried to intervene, the appellants assaulted them with lathis which injured their heads. According to this witness, they were taken to the hospital, where they received treatment. At paragraph 19 of the deposition, this witness states that he remained in the hospital for about 20 days. 5. When they tried to intervene, the appellants assaulted them with lathis which injured their heads. According to this witness, they were taken to the hospital, where they received treatment. At paragraph 19 of the deposition, this witness states that he remained in the hospital for about 20 days. 5. PW 2 Sita Devi is the mother of the informant. She too has supported the prosecution case and has narrated the facts as stated by PW 1. At paragraph 14 of the deposition, this witness has stated that she remained in the hospital for about 10-12 days. 6. PW 3 Urmila Devi is the informant of this case. This witness has supported her case as made out in the First Information Report and has also stated that she was examined by the doctor in the hospital. She has proved her signature on the First Information Report. She claims that she was assaulted by lathi blows inflicted by Chandrika Mahto and also states that she remained in the hospital for about 10 days. 7. From the evidence as discussed above, it would appear that there was a dispute between the parties regarding flow of water from the drain. It is stated that the informant had wrongly let the drain water flow into the property belonging to the appellants. Certain discrepancies have also been pointed out but these discrepancies are not fatal to the prosecution case. For example, it is stated that the accused persons came to the verandah of the house of the informant and began to abuse the informant as per the statement of PW 3, whereas the mother (PW 2) of the informant (PW 3) states that the wife of Chandrika Mahto had first came to the place of occurrence and had began to abuse and assault the informant. 8. This Court, on perusal of the evidence is inclined to believe the statement of PW 3 on this issue, rather on the statements of PWs 1 and 2 because according to their own statements, they had come to the place of occurrence when they heard an alarm being raised by the informant (PW 3). 8. This Court, on perusal of the evidence is inclined to believe the statement of PW 3 on this issue, rather on the statements of PWs 1 and 2 because according to their own statements, they had come to the place of occurrence when they heard an alarm being raised by the informant (PW 3). Great emphasis has been placed on the fact that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined and that the injured witnesses have orally stated that they had remained in the hospital for ten days, but they have not been able to produce any documentary evidence regarding the treatment they received in the hospital, to substantiate their case. I, therefore, find that the Trial Court has rightly held that Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code or for that matter, Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code would not be applicable in the facts of this case. 9. The question before this Court is whether in the absence of the medical report, the appellants could have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. In effect, it is submitted that there is no material before the Court to prove the factum of assault and as such the entire case should be disbelieved. The Trial Court has relied on the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses, when they say that they were assaulted in the manner which resulted in their being hospitalized for about 10 days. The Trial Court has also relied on the evidence, which remains unsupported by any other documentary evidence to show that the injured were admitted to the hospital for the injuries they received in the course of the occurrence. This Court cannot on the basis of the oral statement of the witnesses, that they were in hospital for 10 days, hold that the injuries were grievous in nature. 10. The prosecution has not cared to exhibit the injury report and formally prove it or examine the doctor to substantiate the allegations that the informant and others received injuries. It appears a case of what is known as ‘mar-pit’ in common parlance. 11. In such circumstances, this Court disposes of this appeal with admonition to the appellants to maintain peace and good behavior in future. 12. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.