Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1331 (PAT)

Satya Narayan Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-11-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash. J. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.1, Fast Track, in Sessions Trial No. 243 of 1991/80 of 2001 by a judgment and order of conviction dated 28.11.2001. 2. The case of the Informant is that on 28.11.1989 the appellant Satya Narayan Singh came to the house of the informant Ramuna Devi wife of deceased Sahdeo Singh and told the deceased that he had got his father influenced by evil spirits and to remove the same and when the deceased retorted the appellant caught and threw him on the ground and sat on his chest and ,jumped over his head and also assaulted him with fists and slap on account of which he died during treatment. 3. Initially the case was instituted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code but upon the death of Sahdeo Singh, the case was converted one under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and put on Trial. 4. The Prosecution in all examined four witnesses out of whom PW 2 is the Informant whereas PW1 is the daughter of the Informant. PW 4 is Doctor who conducted the Postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and PW 3 is Tukai Devi, who has been declared hostile. 5. On going through the evidence of the Informant PW 2 and the daughter of the Informant PW 1. I find that there is absolutely no difference in the statement given initially. PW 1 also fully corroborates the statement of PW 2. PW 4 is the Doctor who found a bruise on the left temporal region 2" x 2" and another lacerated wound over the left eye 2" x/2" x by skin deep which had caused hemorrhage and head injury on his person on account of which he had died. Thus, on a fair analysis of the occurrence I am inclined to hold that the Prosecution has proved his case beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. The appellant submits that since the occurrence had taken place in the year1989. it would be against the interest of justice to send him behind the bars after a lapse of so many years and when he had attained the age of more than 70 years. However, he is agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 6. The appellant submits that since the occurrence had taken place in the year1989. it would be against the interest of justice to send him behind the bars after a lapse of so many years and when he had attained the age of more than 70 years. However, he is agreeable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the informant or his heirs within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed but with modification in sentence to the extent that the appellant shall deposit a sum of Rs.25,000/- in the Court below for disbursal to the Informant/her heirs within two months from the date of receipt of the judgment. In default of the same he shall undergo the rest of the period prescribed by the trial Court. 8. The Court below shall notice the Informant/her heirs for withdrawal of the amount which he shall disburse on verification of identification. 9. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.