Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 527 (PAT)

Deo Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-04-18

RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2013
JUDGMENT Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J. This Criminal Revision is directed against the Judgment dated 14.3.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 1984/165 of 2001 by the Additional Court, Vast Track Court, Samastipur, whereby the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and one Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) were acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 324 and 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The prosecution case, in brief is that the petitioner-informant, Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8), gave his fardbeyan on 10.5.1983 at about 5.15 P.M. at D.M.C.H., Laheriasarai. Darbhanga, to Sri P. Jha, the Sub Inspector of Police of Police Station Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, to the effect that he alongwith his brother, Krishna Mohan Singh, went to uproot the pegs at about 6 A. M. on 10.5.1983. At that time, Shiv Shanker Singh anned with bhala and Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh with empty hand came and made protest, on which he replied that he will erect the hut there. In that course, hot exchange of words started from both sides. In the meantime. Ashok Kumar Singh asked his brother Shiv Shanker Singh to cause assault, on whieh Shiv Shanker Singh, gave bhala blow causing injury at his left chest. On hullah, Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) armed with Jarsa. Sri Krishna Singh armed with bhala. Awadhesh Singh armed with bhala. Sunil Singh armed with farsa and Mahendra Singh armed with bhala 'came there. Awadhesh Singh gave bhala blow at his left forearm and Sunil Singh gave farsa blow at his face. Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) gave farsa blow at the forehead of his brother, Krishna Mohan Singh, Mahendra Singh also gave bhala blow at the left arm pit of Krishna Mohan Singh, and Krishna Singh assaulted Krishna Mohan Singh on the left side of his right chest. When his son, Nawal Kishore Singh, came there, then Ashok Kumar Singh fired from his pistol at his stomach. On hullah. Suresh Prasad Singh. Harendra Singh and others came there and saw the occurrence and thereafter all the accused moved from there. He alongwith other injured were carried to Samastipur Hospital by the villagers and from there they were referred to D.M.C.H. Laheriasarai. Darbhanga. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the petitioner-informant. On hullah. Suresh Prasad Singh. Harendra Singh and others came there and saw the occurrence and thereafter all the accused moved from there. He alongwith other injured were carried to Samastipur Hospital by the villagers and from there they were referred to D.M.C.H. Laheriasarai. Darbhanga. 3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the petitioner-informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8), Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 67 of 1983 was instituted on 10.5.1983 under Sections 147. 148. 149.324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against all the aforesaid accused and the matter was investigated by the police and after completion of the investigation. police submitted the charge-sheet under the aforesaid Sections against the F.LK named accused. On taking the cognizance of the offence the case was committed to the Court of sessions for trial in usual way where all the accused named in the F.I.R. were charged under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and Shiv Shanker Singh. Sunil Singh. Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead), Mahendra Singh and Awadhesh Singh were further charged under Sections 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and Ashok Kumar Singh was further charged under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. 4. In support of its case. the prosecution examined altogether 10 witnesses and got exhibited the documents il1cJuding the injury reports. Exts.2. 2/1 and 2/2. relating to Nawal Kishore Singh (PW 7), the informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and Krishna Mohan Singh (PW 6). On the other hand the defence has also examined altogether five witnesses and got exhibited the several documents including the F.LK of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 1983 registered under Sections 147. 148. 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext.F) of the accused. Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (opposite party No.2) against the informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and others and the injury 'report of Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (Ext. B). 5. The learned trial Court on consideration of the materials and the evidence on the record passed the impugned Judgment acquitting the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and one Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) of the charges levelled against them. 6. B). 5. The learned trial Court on consideration of the materials and the evidence on the record passed the impugned Judgment acquitting the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and one Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) of the charges levelled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submission that the learned trial Court illegally disbelieved the prosecution case due to non explanation of the injuries as found on the person of the accused, Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (opposite party No.2), while the occurrence of the present case and the occurrence as alleged by the accused, Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (opposite party No.2) are different. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 made submission that the informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) himself has admitted in paragraph-18 of his evidence that in the occurrence, in which he has sustained injuries the accused, Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (opposite party No.2) has also sustained injuries of which he has lodged the counter case. Injury report of Ashok Kumar Singh has been got exhibited as Ext. B. But there is no explanation about the injuries sustained by the accused, Ashok Kumar Singh alias Ram Sakal Singh (opposite party No.2) either in the fardbeyan of the informant, Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) or in the evidence of the informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and other witnesses, which creates grave doubt regarding the truthfulness of the prosecution versions. 8. PW 8, Deo Chandra Singh, has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place in the morning at about 6 A.M. on 10.5.1983. At that time, he alongwith his brother, Krishna Mohan Singh was uprooting the pegs from the land for erecting the hut. Thereafter, Ashok Singh and Shiv Shanker Singh, respectively armed with pistol and bhala came there and forbade them to uproot the pegs. Due to that reasons, there was hot exchange of words in between both sides. In that course on the instruction of Ashok Singh his brother. Shiv Shanker Singh gave bhala blow which hit at his left chest. In the meantime Krishna Singh. Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead).Mahendra Singh. Sunil Singh and Awadhesh Singh also came there. Due to that reasons, there was hot exchange of words in between both sides. In that course on the instruction of Ashok Singh his brother. Shiv Shanker Singh gave bhala blow which hit at his left chest. In the meantime Krishna Singh. Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead).Mahendra Singh. Sunil Singh and Awadhesh Singh also came there. Sunil Singh and Chaturbhuj Singh were armed with farsa, whereas rests were armed with bhala Sunil Singh gave Iarsa blow at his face and Awadhesh Singh gave bhala blow at his left forearm. Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) caused Iarsa injury on the forehead of his brother. Krishna Mohan Singh. Mahendra Singh gave bhala blow on the armpit of his brother. Krishna Mohan Singh and Krishna Singh also gave bhala blow on his chest. On hullah his son. Nawal Kishore Singh came there then Ashok Singh fired from his pistol at him causing injury on his chin. He alongwith other injured were carried to Samastipur Hospital and from there they were referred for Darbhanga Hospital where his fardbeyan was recorded. This witness has further stated in his evidence that the old plot number of the place of occurrence is 351, which belongs to him and the accused have no concern with that land. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of his evidence that he had not stated in his fardbeyan that the land of the place of occurrence is khatiyani land nor he has given the statement before the police to the above effect. This witness has further stated in paragraph-18 of his evidence that in the occurrence alleged to have taken place he had received injuries and Ashok Singh had also sustained injuries regarding which Ashok Singh had lodged the counter case against him. He has also stated that it is not true that in that case the version of Ashok Singh was that the firing was made through pistol by him. 9. PW 4 is Dr. B.K. Sinha. He has stated in his evidence that he was posted as resident Surgeon in the D.M.C.H. on 10.5.1983. He has deposed in his evidence about the examination of Nawal Kishore Singh (PW 7). Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and Krishna Mohan Singh (PW 6) respectively at about 10.30 A.M., 10.40 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. on 10.5.1983. He has proved the injury reports of the aforesaid three injured as Exts.2. 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. He has deposed in his evidence about the examination of Nawal Kishore Singh (PW 7). Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and Krishna Mohan Singh (PW 6) respectively at about 10.30 A.M., 10.40 A.M. and 11.00 A.M. on 10.5.1983. He has proved the injury reports of the aforesaid three injured as Exts.2. 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. According to the injury reports one injury as found on the person of Nawal Kishore Singh (PW 7) was simple in nature which might have been caused by country made pistol. Four injuries as found on the person of Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) were also simple in nature. Out of the three injuries as found on the person of Krishna Mohan Singh (PW 6), injury Nos. 1 and 3 were simple in nature and the same were respectively caused by hard and blunt substance and sharp pointed weapon while the injury No.2. Le., penetrating wound 1/2" X 1/2" situated on the right side of chest in the fifth space on the anterior auxiliary line communicating which chest cavity was caused by sharp pointed weapon such as bhala and was dangerous to life. 10. Ext.A is the F.I.R of Kalyanpur P.S. Case No. 69 of 1983, which was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the accused Ashok Kumar Singh (O.P. No.2) against the informant of this case. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and others under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code regarding the occurrence of 10.5.1983 at about 6.00 A.M.. It appears from the aforesaid F.I.R that fardbeyan of the accused. Ashok Kumar Singh (O.P. No.2), was recorded on 11.5.1983 at about 1.30 P.M. at D.M.C.H. 11. Dr. Ram Laulin Prasad who has been examined as D.W.5. has stated in his evidence that on 14.5.1983 he was posted as C.A.S. in Samastipur Sadar Hospital. On the same day at 8.30 a.m. he examined Ashok Kumar Singh, son of Ram Pukar Singh of village-Akbarpur. P.S. Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, and found six injuries on his person. He has proved the injury report of Ashok Kumar Singh as Ext. B. According to him out of the six injuries found on the person of Ashok Kumar Singh injury Nos. 3. 4. 5 and 6 were simple in nature but injury No.2. P.S. Kalyanpur, District-Samastipur, and found six injuries on his person. He has proved the injury report of Ashok Kumar Singh as Ext. B. According to him out of the six injuries found on the person of Ashok Kumar Singh injury Nos. 3. 4. 5 and 6 were simple in nature but injury No.2. i.e., penetrating wound 1" X 1/4" X abdominal cavity deep on the right iliac Fossa found on his person was grievous and caused by sharp penetrating substance may be bhala. The opinion regarding the injury No. I. i.e., incised wound 1-1/2" X 1/4" X bone deep at right temporal region of head was kept reserved. According to this witness the injury Nos. I and 2 were dangerous to life. 12. The informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8), himself has admitted in paragraph-18 of his evidence that accused. Ashok Kumar Singh (opposite party No.2) had also sustained injury in the same occurrence but there is no explanation regarding the injuries of Ashok Kumar Singh either in his Jardbeyan or in his evidence or the evidence of the other witnesses as to how Ashok Kumar Singh (opposite party No.2) also sustained injuries. There is also counter case to the present case lodged by Ashok Kumar Singh (opposite party No.2) against the Informant. Deo Chandra Singh (PW 8) and Krishna Mohan Smgh (PW 6) and others for the offence under Sections 147. 148. 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. The learned trial Court discussed the oral and documentary evidence as adduced on behalf of the prosecution and the defence in detail and arrived at the conclusion that the injuries as sustained by Ashok Kumar Singh (opposite party No.2) has not been explained by the prosecution which creates a grave doubt regarding the prosecution versions. There is delay in lodging the F.I.R and the place of occurrence is in or near the Bathan of Ashok Kumar Singh whose house was also situated nearby and. accordingly acquitted the opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 and one Chaturbhuj Singh (since dead) of the charges levelled against them. 14. I find no illegality in the impugned Judgment for interference with the same in revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly this Criminal Revision stands dismissed. Revision dismissed.