Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1432 (PAT)

Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-12-11

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellant has been convicted under Section 307, Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to seven years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default of which a further imprisonment for one year and two years respectively by a judgment and order of conviction dated 28.9.2001 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, in Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1992/445 of 1993. 2. The case of the Informant Mahesh Kumar Singh is that on 1.7.1992 at about 6.30 AM. an altercation had taken place between his aunt and his father in which transaction his uncle had became injured and he was taken to the Hospital. After the said incidents the accused persons who were supporters of his uncle, came to his house where a construction was going on, and started to altercate on behalf of his uncle. In this transaction, the appellant is said to have fired with a pistol which hit on the upper portion of the waist. The rest of the accused persons assaulted his father Ramdeep Singh and brothers Pravesh Kumar Singh and Dinesh Kumar. 3. The defence did not bring any material witness but proved certain documents to show the complicity of the prosecution party in an earlier occurrence. The defence case was that Rajendra Prasad had fired which hit Mahesh Prasad, the Informant. 4. During Trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses out of whom PW 1 Dinesh Kumar, PW 2 Pravesh Kumar, PW 3 Ramdeep Singh and PW 6 Mahesh Kumar Singh belonged to the same family and are eyewitnesses. PW 4 Dr. Ram Bhajan Chaudhary examined the injured PW 3 and PW 6 whereas PW 7 Dr. M.L. Agrawal is a formal witness. PW 8 Ram Chandra Paswan is the Investigating Officer. PW 5 Surajdeo Prasad the only independent witness had been declared hostile. 5. PW 1 Dinesh Kumar stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the accused persons and that appellant Rajendra Prasad had fired at his brother Mahesh Prasad with his pistol which hit him on the waist whereas Brij Nandan assaulted his father with lathi and he himself was assaulted by Binod on his back and Suresh assaulted on his hands. He admits that for the same occurrence on the same day Naresh Kumar had instituted a case against him, Mashesh, and his father and one Pravesh. He denies that he had seen Naresh and Umesh injured on the said date. 6. PW 2 Pravesh Kumar Sinha another brother of the Informant, gave an identical version as that of PW 1. He stated in his cross-examination that his uncle Naresh used to claim title over the land on which construction was being made. However, he denies that they assaulted his uncle Naresh even while admitted that Naresh had flied a case, in which, even he was an accused. He stated that in course of altercation with his uncle, a number of villagers had gathered there. He was examined on the next day of the occurrence. 7. PW 3 Ramdeep Singh, the father of PW 1 and PW 2 stated that on the date of occurrence, the accused persons including his cousin brother Naresh Prasad came there and started to altercate with him over a construction of land. In course of the same, the appellant Rajendra Prasad is said to have fired at his son Mahesh which hit him on his waist and he, and his other sons were also assaulted. He stated that 1-1/2 hours before this occurrence incidents of assault between the accused persons had taken place. He also conceded that the appellant Rajendra Prasad had no concern with the dispute between him and his cousin brother over the said land. 8. PW 4 Dr. Ram Bhajan Choudhary found two injuries on the person of Pravesh Kumar but one over the right elbow joint caused by hard blunt substance whereas the other co-accused by penetrating an instrument. An abrasion was also found on him. 9. On the same day he examined PW 6 Mahesh Kumar and found a single entry of wound 1-1/2" circular in diameter and 1/2" deep exit wound 1" circular in diameter and 1/2" deep on the waist caused by fire-arm injuries. Another injury caused by hard blunt substance was found on the head, two bruises on the left hand and back He also examined Ramdeep Singh and found four injuries. Out of them, injury No.3 after X-ray was opined to be grievous whereas the rest were simple. He admits that the X-ray report was not present before him and on the day of deposition. 10. Out of them, injury No.3 after X-ray was opined to be grievous whereas the rest were simple. He admits that the X-ray report was not present before him and on the day of deposition. 10. PW 6 Mahesh Kumar Singh, brother of PW 1, and PW 2 and son of PW 3, is the Informant who supports his version of the First Information Report. He admits in Paragraph-5 that his uncle Naresh was an Informant in the counter case. He stated that there was no talk with him when he was fired at. He stated that before the present occurrence, the mother of appellant had been murdered in which case, he was an accused. He and his family members were accused in the said case. His mother was also an accused in the said case. In the counter case they were convicted and the matter was pending in appeal. 11. PW 8 is an Investigating Officer. He did not state any important point either in favour or against the prosecution. 12. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and PW 6 belong to the same family. The occurrence took place in an open area where other persons had gathered there but no independent witness has been examined which casts a reasonable doubt upon the prosecution case. Further, it is admitted by the Informant that he and his family members were accused in the murder of the mother of the appellant and hence, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out, more so because the admission of the PW 3 is categorical that appellant had no concern with the dispute between him and his cousin brothers. Moreover, even the Informant states that without any provocation, the appellant had fired at him. This does not appear probable that a person who had no concern with the dispute between the parties, would suddenly fire without any reasonable cause and provocation. Also the fact that there was a counter version leads one to conclude that the prosecution has not brought the true facts before this Court. 13. Hence, seriously doubting the veracity of the prosecution case and giving benefit of doubts to the appellants, the appeal is allowed. Also the fact that there was a counter version leads one to conclude that the prosecution has not brought the true facts before this Court. 13. Hence, seriously doubting the veracity of the prosecution case and giving benefit of doubts to the appellants, the appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 28.9.2001 passed against the appellant in connection with Sessions Trial No. 108 of 1992/445 of 1993 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, is, hereby, set aside. 14. The appellant is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.