Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1357 (PAT)

Dhananjay Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-02

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years by a Judgment and order of conviction dated 25.5.1999 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 317 of 1995. 2. The case of the informant Nagendar Singh is that from the date of occurrence after Tilak ceremony of a co-villager while he and his first cousin Amrendar Singh were sleeping in their Bathan, at about 2.00 a.m. two miscreants came with the sword and gupti The informant identified the appellant with the sword in his hand with which he assaulted him on his head on account of which he fell down. The second person assaulted his cousin brother on the neck with gupti and when he attempted to save the informant by catching hold of the sword he injured his hand and fingers. The reason for the occurrence that on 28.5.1995 while appellant Dhananjay Singh was passing through a lane in which the informant was riding his bicycle he accidentally hit him which led to an altercation and this according to the informant was the motive of the occurrence. 3. During trial, the Prosecution examined eight witnesses, PW 1 Akhileshwar Singh @ Wakil Singh is the father of the informant and hear-say witness. PW 2 Jaleshwar Singh, uncle of the informant is not an eye-witness but he stated that he saw the appellant and the unknown persons fleeing away from the direction where the informant and his cousin were sleeping. PW 3 Lal Bahadur Singh is a seizure witness of the sword which had fallen at the place of occurrence. PW 4 Amrendar Kumar Singh is the cousin brother of the informant and injured eyewitness whereas PW 5 Shalendar Singh is the full brother of the informant who had allegedly seen the appellant fleeing away from the place of occurrence. 4. The informant Nagendar Singh has been examined as PW 6 whereas PW 7 is Doctor Harishankar Prasad, who examined the informant Nagendar Singh and PW 4 Amrendar Kr. Singh and found as many as six injuries on the person of the informant two of which were incised in nature two were sharp cutting wounds and two were abrasions. 4. The informant Nagendar Singh has been examined as PW 6 whereas PW 7 is Doctor Harishankar Prasad, who examined the informant Nagendar Singh and PW 4 Amrendar Kr. Singh and found as many as six injuries on the person of the informant two of which were incised in nature two were sharp cutting wounds and two were abrasions. He got the injury No.1 x-rayed from which it appears that there was a fracture of parietal bone and, therefore, grievous in nature. The rest of the injuries were simple in nature. 5. PW 4 had also allegedly sustained as many as seven injuries, out of which, three injuries were incised and four were sharp cutting wounds on different parts of the body. However, all the injuries were simple in nature opined to be caused by a sharp cutting weapon such as sword. 6. PW 8 is the Technician of tile lab who took the x-ray report of the informant. 7. The appellant examined his father on his behalf on the point of relationship and enmity between the parties. He stated that Ratan and Baban were full brothers and are Samdhi whereas Asha Devi was the daughter of his brother and married to the son of Ratan in the year 1987. She was murdered by administering poison by Ratan, Baban, Parvati, Janki and Ajit for which a criminal case was instituted which was pending adjudication before the Sessions Judge. The said Baban and Ratan are the uncles of Jaleshwar who is the uncle of the informant and it was for this reason, the appellant has been falsely implicated so as to coerce them to withdraw the case of murder of his cousin sister. Moreover, on account of this murder, there was no relationship between the families. The motive for the occurrence appears to be highly far fetched and unbelievable. 8. From the evidence of witnesses, I find that all the witnesses are relatives of the informant. It is improbable to believe that two persons variously armed would cause the nature of injuries as mentioned by the Prosecution without any immediate provocation. The evidence of the father of the appellant comes to the rescue of the appellant which creates a reasonable doubt with regard to the veracity of the Prosecution case. It is improbable to believe that two persons variously armed would cause the nature of injuries as mentioned by the Prosecution without any immediate provocation. The evidence of the father of the appellant comes to the rescue of the appellant which creates a reasonable doubt with regard to the veracity of the Prosecution case. In this background, in the opinion of the Court, in absence of any independent witness including the Investigating Officer, it would be highly unsafe to rely upon the sole testimony of interested witnesses. 9. Hence, giving benefit of doubt to the appellant, the Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 19.5.1999 passed against the appellant by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 317 of 1995 is, hereby set aside. 10. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Appeal allowed.