Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1389 (PAT)

Sia Ram Rai v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- The appellant has been convicted under Section 307, IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for ten years and three years by the 4th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Begusarai in S.Tr. No. 213 of 1991 by judgment and order dated 22.2.2002. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 7.11.1990 when he was sleeping in his house suddenly he heard some sounds at 10.30 p.m. When he woke up and lighted his torch saw Sia Ram Rai and Ramashish Rai armed with pistol in their hands whereas Rambabu Rai, Ram Briksha Rai and Arbind Rai there at which the appellant is said to have fired which hit him on the stomache he then fell down. On sounds of firing his brother Nagina Rai and Yougeshwar Rai came there and saw the appellant fleeing away. The reason for the occurrence was an old dispute with the appellant, Siya Ram Rai. 3. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW 1, Yogeshwar Rai who was named in the First Information Report as a witness who came upon hulla and identified the appellant has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence was declared hostile. PW 2, Suresh Rai as also PW 3, Harvansh Rai have also been declared hostile. 4. PW 4 and PW 5 are formal witnesses. 5. PW 6, Mahadeo Rai stated that he went to the place of occurrence on hearing the sounds of firing he saw the appellant fleeing away from there. However, in his cross-examination he admitted that he was virtually blind since last 14-15 years. 6. PW 7, Nagina Rai is the brother of the informant who stated that when he came to the informant's house on hearing gun-shot he saw the appellant and one Ram Sabu Rai but did not identify the rest. Admittedly, this identification was from the back. In his cross-examination his attention was drawn to the earlier statement that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that he had identified the accused persons. He admitted that he was examined - by the Investigating Officer six days later for which delay there is no explanation offered. 7. PW 8 who has been numbered as PW 9. In his cross-examination his attention was drawn to the earlier statement that he had not stated before the Investigating Officer that he had identified the accused persons. He admitted that he was examined - by the Investigating Officer six days later for which delay there is no explanation offered. 7. PW 8 who has been numbered as PW 9. He is the informant himself and has stated that on the night of occurrence the accused persons came to his house and thereafter, on the orders of Ram Briksha Rai appellant fired on account of which he was injured and fell down. 8. PW 10 who is in fact PW 9 is the Investigating Officer. He stated that he saw some objective material at the place of occurrence to corroborate the prosecution story. However, the Doctor was not examined on behalf of the prosecution despite repeated attempts. 9. From the evidence of the prosecution, I find that apart from the informant there is no other eye-witness to the occurrence. As also his brother Nagina Rai who is on the point of identification does, not mention any source of identification. In absence of the same his evidence with regard to it and also the fact that he was examined 5 to 6 days later casts a doubt on his credibility. 10. From the evidence of the informant, I find that even though he stated that there was some enmity with the appellant and attempted to bring on record some documents it appears to be belated in nature. There does not seem any motive for the firing and in the manner suggested does not appear to have been done with the intent to cause death. 11. In absence of corroborating material with regard to the nature of injuries sustained by the injured it would be further difficult to sustain conviction under Section 307, IPC. Hence the same is converted to one under Section 324, IPC and the sentence to period' already undergone i.e. around six months during trial which shall be sufficient sentence under each count. 11. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed.