Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1361 (PAT)

Mukhram Ram v. State of Bihar

2013-12-02

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 324, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for one year in each count whereas the Appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Section 341, IPC and sentenced to RI for one year and directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000/-by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Bhabhua in S.Tr. No. 278/180 of 1991/1998 by judgment and order dated 06.07.1999. 2. The case of the Informant. Dinanath Ram PW 6 is that on 20.03.1990 at 7.30 a.m. when he woke up to urinate the Appellant, Sheo Nath Chamar caught hold of his neck and started beating him. When he attempted to free his neck Appellant, Mukhram Ram fired which caused injury in his right leg. Accused, Raghurai Ram allegedly set fire to his hut on account of which his hut was burnt. 3. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW 3, Akshyavat Nath Singh and PW 4, Sukhan Singh are formal witnesses. PW 5 has been declared hostile. PW 2 is a hearsay witness whereas PW 1 is an eyewitness, PW 6, the informant and PW 7 is the Doctor who examined the injuries on the person of PW 6. PW 8 is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. PW 1, Sukhu Ram has stated that while he was returning to his house he saw the Appellants having caught hold of the neck of the informant and beating him and when the informant attempted to free his neck the Appellant, Mukhrarn Ram fired at him which caused injury on his leg and then accused, Raghurai Ram set fire in the hut of the informant which was burnt on account of which she-but-falo and his cot was burnt. 5. PW 2, Surendra Ram stated that when he reached the place of occurrence on shouts he saw the Appellants fleeing away from there and the informant injured who told him about the occurrence. 6. PW 6, Dinanath Ram is the informant who supported the prosecution case in its entirety as stated in the First Information Report. 7. PW 7, Dr. Gazanand Kumar Singh found a simple injury on the posterior aspect of the middle of the right leg caused by fire-arm. 8. 6. PW 6, Dinanath Ram is the informant who supported the prosecution case in its entirety as stated in the First Information Report. 7. PW 7, Dr. Gazanand Kumar Singh found a simple injury on the posterior aspect of the middle of the right leg caused by fire-arm. 8. PW 8 is the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of occurrence but did not find any signs of burning at the place of occurrence. 9. The defence examined one witness i.e. D.W. 1, Prabhu Ram who stated that accused Sheonath Ram and Raghurai Ram are his cousin brothers and he had been assaulted by the informant, Dinanath Ram with a chhura for which a case had been instituted by him. The present Appellants had helped him in prosecuting the case which had enraged the informant and hence the false implication. 10. PW 6 who is the sole eye-witness had stated that Mukhram Ram had opened fire on his person but during trial he did not name the Appellant. 11. In view of such discrepancy. I would be inclined to hold that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its beyond all reasonable doubt. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the Appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 06.07.1999 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge. Bhabhua in S.Tr. No. 278/180 of 1991/1998 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.