Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1393 (PAT)

Rajendra Das v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the appellant No. 1 died during the pendency of Appeal and, hence, his Appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. 2. The appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Sections 307 and 460, IPC and sentenced to RI for three years by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Darbhanga in S.Tr. No. 163 of 1997 by judgment and order dated 10.10.2001. 3. The case of the prosecution according to the informant, Mahendra Das (PW 11) is that on 17.12.1996 while he was sleeping in his house along with his family members his eldest son and daughter-in-law were sleeping inside the northern room and his two younger sons, daughter and mother were sleeping in the southern room and when he woke up someone started assaulting him. He identified them as the appellants and some unknown miscreants. On account of the assault he and his wife were injured. When his son came to intervene he was also assaulted by the appellants. When they raised alarm and witnesses started to arrive the accused fled away. The reason for the occurrence is that the appellant No. 1. Rajendra Das was an employee in his shop and he had been given loan for his sister's marriage and the informant was demanding return of the same for which the panchayati was also convened but the appellant No. 1 refused to accept the decision of the pancayati and hence the present occurrence. 4. During trial the prosecution examined sixteen witnesses out of whom PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 are neighbours of the informant who reached the place of occurrence on alarm having been raised by the informant's family, PW 6, PW 7, PW 8, PW 9, PW 10 and PW 11 are official witnesses whereas PW 12 and PW 13 are Doctors who examined the injured persons. PW 14 is the Officer In-charge who proved formal documents and PW 15, Janardan Pd. Yadav is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 16, another police official who is a formal police witness. 5. PW 1, Salauddin Khan is merely on the factum of the occurrence and hearsay on the point of identification. 6. PW 2, Sadre Alam has been declared hostile. 7. PW 3, Md. Yadav is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 16, another police official who is a formal police witness. 5. PW 1, Salauddin Khan is merely on the factum of the occurrence and hearsay on the point of identification. 6. PW 2, Sadre Alam has been declared hostile. 7. PW 3, Md. Sarfe Alam is also only on the factum of the occurrence and hearsay on the point of identification. 8. PW 4, Md. Jahir Alam and PW 5, Md. Jahangir are also on the same point. 9. PW 6, Lalan Das is the son of the informant who stated that on the night of occurrence he heard an alarm then he came out and saw the accused persons were assaulting his parents when he intervened he was also assaulted by them. The reason for the occurrence was the same as given out in the First Information Report. 10. PW 7, Chiranjivi Lal Das is another son of the informant who gave the same statement as PW 6. 11. PW 8, Asha Devi is the wife of Lalan Das who supports her husband in all material particulars. 12. PW 9, Lakhia Devi is a tendered witness whereas PW 10, Manju Devi is the wife of the informant who supports the prosecution case. 13. PW 11, Mahendra Das is the informant who has fully supported his version as given out in the First Information Report. 14. PW 12, Dr. Jagdish Chandra examined the injured and found simple injuries on the person of Chiranjivi Lal Das caused by fire-arm. 15. PW 13, Dr. Ganesh Chandra Karn examined Lalan Das and proved the injury reports. 16. PW 14, Shashank Bhushan Sharan is the Officer In-charge. He stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he was told that the accused persons had escaped in a certain direction and they were followed but the names were not disclosed at that point of time. 17. PW 15, Janardan Pd. Yadav is also an Investigating Officer of the case who stated that initial story was that of robbery in the house of the informant. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the background of admitted financial dispute between the parties the present case has been instituted. 17. PW 15, Janardan Pd. Yadav is also an Investigating Officer of the case who stated that initial story was that of robbery in the house of the informant. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in the background of admitted financial dispute between the parties the present case has been instituted. The fact that the sole independent witness who is a Police Officer stated that the initial story was that in course of theft/dacoity the inmates of the informant's family had been assaulted and that no names were disclosed at the initial stage it would be highly unsafe to maintain the conviction of the appellants. 19. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid submission advanced on behalf of the appellants. Hence, the Appeal is allowed and the order, of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 10.10.2001 by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Darbhanga in S.Tr. No. 163 of 1997 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.