Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1391 (PAT)

Butan Singh @ Ram Prasad Singh v. Parsuram Singh

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- It has been submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) 133 of 2002 that both the appellants of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 135 of 2002 have died. 2. In view of such. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 135 of 2002 is dismissed as having become infructuous. 3. The sole appellant Butan Singh alias Ram Prasad Singh has been convicted under Section 304(II)/149, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by a judgment dated 7.3.2002 passed by, the Presiding Officer. Additional Court No.1. Fast Track Court. Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1985/99 of 2001. 4. The case of the informant Dharmdeo Tiwary is that while he was coming along with deceased Baliram Dubey he saw 10-12 persons standing near the bridge. They then blocked the way, upon which Baliram Dubey stopped the motorcycle. Then the accused persons rushed towards them and assaulted the deceased Baliram Dubey for reasons of land dispute. The specific allegation is that it was Parshuram and Baikunth, who began to assault the deceased with lathi, whereas the present appellant was merely standing there. The appellants were convicted under Section 149, IPC but acquitted of the said charge and convicted as mentioned above. 5. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 1 Shambhu Ram alias Sabbu Ram stated that he was in the fields at the time of occurrence and when he heard a hulla, he along with PW 2 Mangal Ram and PW 3 Rangnath Dubey went there and saw the appellants Parshuram Singh and Haridwar Singh assaulting the deceased Baliram Dubey with lathi. He stated that accused Diptu Singh - (now acquitted) was also instigating them. The role allotted to the appellant is that Butan Singh. Baikunth Singh and Ramjee Singh (now acquitted) were standing there with lathi. 6. PW 2 Mangal Ram and PW 3 Rangnath Dubey have repeated the same version. 7. PW 4 Dharmdeo Tiwary is the informant of the case. He stated the narrative as he had done in the First Information Report. He once again asserted that it was the co-appellants (now dead) who had assaulted the deceased. 8. 6. PW 2 Mangal Ram and PW 3 Rangnath Dubey have repeated the same version. 7. PW 4 Dharmdeo Tiwary is the informant of the case. He stated the narrative as he had done in the First Information Report. He once again asserted that it was the co-appellants (now dead) who had assaulted the deceased. 8. On behalf of the defence, certain documents have been brought on record to show that on the same date one Dipty Singh had instituted a case with regard to an assault against the informant, deceased and others, upon which a substantive case was instituted. 9. PW 5 is the doctor, who proved the post-mortem examination report. However, the doctor, who held the same, was dead and therefore he could not be examined. 10. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer, who stated that he had gone to the place of occurrence and found the objective evidence in support of the prosecution case. However, the fact that there was a counter-version of this occurrence is not denied. In absence of any explanation of the same, it would be unsafe to rely on the testimony of the witnesses with regard to the appellant upon whom there is no specific overt act. 11. Hence, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 133 of 2002 is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on 7.3.2002 by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1, Fast Track Court, Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 20 of 1985/99 of 2001 is set aside. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.