Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1445 (PAT)

Bhupendra Yadav v. State of Bihar

2013-12-12

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellants have been convicted under Sections 324 and 148, IPC and even while the appellant No. I has been sentenced to R.I. for two years and one year respectively the rest of the appellants have been given the benefit of Section 360, Cr PC after due admonition by a judgment dated 25.9.2001 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1992. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.7.1991 at about 10 A.M. appellant Domi Yadav and accused Satya Narain Yadav came to his house and invited him for playing cards. He declined and left for the house of one Baua Thakur and when returning from there, he saw the accused persons playing cards. Seeing the informant appellant Bhupendra Yadav ordered to assault him, whereupon the rest of the accused persons surrounded him. Appellant Bhupendra Yadav himself hurled a farsa blow all him, which hit him on his head. Thereafter the rest of the appellants assaulted him with lathi and iron rod. Witnesses came on his alarm and seeing them they fled away. 3. The accused claimed to have been falsely implicated for reasons or land dispute and also filed certain documents in support of the same. 4. During trial the prosecution examined six wit nesses in all. Out of whom, PW 1 Lakhan Lal Gupta, PW 2 Nasimuddin and PW 3 Md. Imran Alam are eye-witnesses, whereas PW 4 Abdul Badud is the Informant. PW 5 Dr. B.K. Singh examined the injured Informant. whereas PW 6 Ashok Kumar Rajak is the Investigation Officer. 5. PW 1 Lakhan Lal Gupata stated that on 14.7.1991 at about 12 Noon when he was present in his house which is just adjacent to the place of occurrence, he heard an alarm and went there. He then found the accused persons assaulting the Informant with farsa and iron rod, on account of which he fell down injured. He was then taken to the Hospital, where the police arrived and the fardbeyan was recorded. It was suggested to him that there was inimical terms between him and the accused persons. He admitted that the father of the Informant, namely Abdul Dudus had filed a case against Bhupendra Yadav in which his son Manoj Gupta had deposed against the accused. It was suggested to him that there was inimical terms between him and the accused persons. He admitted that the father of the Informant, namely Abdul Dudus had filed a case against Bhupendra Yadav in which his son Manoj Gupta had deposed against the accused. He also stated that he knew that Giris Yadav had filed a case against Mahendra Yadav but denied knowing that accused Satya Narain Yadav was also an accused in the said case. He gave a vague answer that his son Maheshwar Gupta may be a witness in the said case. It thus appears that this witness belongs to a certain faction of the village which is opposed to the accused persons. His attention was also drawn to his earlier statement that in fact he had not deposed as an eye-witness. When confronted PW 6 the Investigating Officer supported the fact that PW 1 Lakhan Lal Gupta had not given an eyewitness account before him in his statement recorded under Section 161, Cr PC. 6. PW 2 Nasimuddin has given an eye-witness account but even his attention was drawn that as to whether he was examined. The attention of PW 6 the Investigating Officer was drawn who supported the fact that this witness had never appeared before him. Hence it, was only during trial after seven years of the occurrence that he had deposed as an eye-witness. 7. PW 3 Md. Imran Alam also has given an eye-witness account. His attention was drawn to the earlier statement made before the Investigating Officer when he was not an eye-witness. The attention of PW 6, the I.O., was also drawn who stated that this witness had stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he saw these accused persons fleeing away towards their house and the Informant was injured. Hence evidently he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. 8. PW 4 Abdul Badud is the Informant, who gave same version as that given by him in the First Information Report. However, a consistent suggestion was given to him that there was a land dispute between the parties and the accused had been implicated for reasons of the same. 9. PW 5 Dr. B.K. Singh found one incised wound on the fore head caused by sharp cutting weapon and a bruise on back caused by hard and blunt substance, which may have been caused by lathi. 9. PW 5 Dr. B.K. Singh found one incised wound on the fore head caused by sharp cutting weapon and a bruise on back caused by hard and blunt substance, which may have been caused by lathi. Both the injuries were simple in nature. 10. PW 6 Ashok Kumar Rajak is the Investigating Officer, who inspected the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the witnesses, to which his attention was drawn during cross-examination and all of them fell in favour of the defence. 11. On a fair analysis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses I find that apart from the Informant there is no eyewitness. In the background of suggested enmity between the parties, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the Informant especially since pains have been taken by the other witnesses to ensure the complicity of the appellants by developing the story during trial. 12. In such view of the matter giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 25.9.2001 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No.64 of 1992 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.