Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 75 (PAT)

Ram Narayan Singh v. State Of Bihar

2013-01-17

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2013
ORAL JUDGMENT Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state and perused the record. 2. This Cr. Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17-11-2000 passed by Sri Hem Shankar Kumar Singh, 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 249 of 1991 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellant No. 1 under Section-324 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants No. 2 & 3 under Sections-323, 324, 341 and sentenced the appellant No. 1 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years u/S 324 of the Indian Penal Code whereas; appellants No. 2 & 3 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year for the offence punishable under Section-323 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for the offence punishable under Section-341 of the Indian Penal Code and it was also ordered that all the above-said sentences shall be run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 4 Md. Ismile gave his fardbeyan to ASI of Bibhutipur police station on 28-09-1989 in injured condition at Government Hospital, Bibhutipur to this effect that on the same day, at about 6.00 a.m. his son, namely, Mumtaj Alam (P.W. 3) had gone to ease himself at the field of one, Sitaram Singh and in the meantime, appellant no. 2 came there and started assaulting P.W. 3 by fist and slaps upon which, he raised alarm and thereafter, P.W. 4 came running there and asked the appellant No. 2 not to do so but appellant No. 2 started abusing him upon which, a hot exchange of words took place between P.W. 4 and appellant No. 2 and in the meantime, appellant No. 2 called the other appellants who came there having armed with Farsa and Lathi and appellant No. 1 gave one Farsa blow to P.W. 4 causing injury on his head and after that, P.W. 4 fell down on earth and then, rest appellants started assaulting him with fist and slap. P.W. 4 raised alarm which attracted the witnesses who tried to save him but they were also assaulted by the appellants. 4. P.W. 4 raised alarm which attracted the witnesses who tried to save him but they were also assaulted by the appellants. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Bibhutipur P.S. Case No. 149 of 1989 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections-341, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, formal FIR was drawn against the appellants for the above said offences. The matter was investigated by the I.O. and after completion of investigation, he submitted charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections-341, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. The cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way and accordingly, all the appellants were put on trial. 6. Appellant No. 1, Ram Narayan Singh was charged for the offence punishable under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas; appellants 2 & 3 were charged for the offences punishable under Sections-323, 324 & 341 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. In support of its case, prosecution examined, altogether, 7 witnesses and also got exhibited formal FIR as Ext. 1, signature of P.W. 4 as Ext. 2, Injury reports as Ext. 3 series, Fardbeyan as Ext 4 and endorsement on fardbeyan as Ext. 5. The statements of appellants were recorded u/S 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which, they denied the prosecution story. The defence also examined one witness and got exhibited sale deed dated 03-07-1985 as Ext.A, cancellation of sale deed dated 11-07-1985 as Ext. B and sale deed dated 11-07-1985 as Ext. A/1. 8. Learned Trial Court having considered the materials available on the record, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order in the manner as stated above. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that all the material prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and there was land dispute between the parties and therefore, no reliance can safely be placed upon the deposition of prosecution witnesses and as a matter of fact, the P.W. 4 brought the above-said case on account of land dispute and previous enmity. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that according to prosecution case itself, alleged occurrence took place on 28-09-1989 and admittedly, the impugned judgment of conviction was pronounced in the year, 2000 and near about 13 years have already passed after pronouncement of the impugned judgment of conviction and after pronouncement of the impugned judgment, no complaint has been made against the appellants, so, a lenient view should be taken in respect of the appellants. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that almost all the material prosecution witnesses have supported the story of assault which is corroborated by the injury reports of injured persons of this case. 11. On perusal of the record, it is apparent that P.W. 5 & P.W. 7 are formal witnesses and they have stated nothing in respect of the alleged occurrence. P.W. 6 Sibhash Chandra Prasad is I.O. of this case whereas; P.W. 5 is doctor who had examined the injured persons. P.W. 5 has proved injury reports as Ext. 3 series. P.W. 2 claimed himself to be an eye witness of the alleged occurrence. P.w. 3 Mumtaz Alam is son of the informant and this witness supported the story of the prosecution. P.W. 4 Md. Ismile is informant of this case and this witness also stated the story of prosecution. On perusal of depositions of the P.W. 2, 3 & 4, I find that all the aforesaid witnesses have made consistent statement on the story of the assault. There is nothing in their deposition to disbelieve their testimony. It would appear from perusal of the impugned judgment of conviction that the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur based his findings on the deposition of P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4. The testimonies of the P.Ws. 2, 3 & 4 are corroborated by injury report of the injured persons of this case and therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the findings of learned trial court. 12. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in the year, 1989 on account of petty issue and after that, the impugned judgment of conviction was pronounced in the year, 2000. 12. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place in the year, 1989 on account of petty issue and after that, the impugned judgment of conviction was pronounced in the year, 2000. Furthermore, I find that prosecution could not brought any material to show the previous conviction of the appellants and, therefore, I am of the opinion, that appellant are entitled to get the privilege of Section-4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Cr. Appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence order and, accordingly, appellants are released on probation under Section-4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on execution of bonds of Rs 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each for the period of one year to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the above period and they shall maintain peace and good behaviour during the period of one year. Appeal dismissed.