Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 94 (PAT)

Parmeshwar Singh v. State Of Bihar

2013-01-21

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. Learned counsel Sri Madhukar Pandey is appointed as amicus curiae. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Madhukar Pandey appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 23.03.2001 passed by Sri Amaresh Kumar Lal, 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1987 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for two years and rupees two hundred each as fine was also imposed upon the appellants and it was directed that in default of payment of fine, the appellants would undergo imprisonment for one month. 4. In brief, the prosecution case, is that P.W.4., namely, Shanker Singh gave his Ferdbeyan to A.S.I. of Bhagwan Bazar Police Station on 19.07.1985 in injured condition at Sadar Hospital, Chapra to this effect that on the same day at about 06:00 A.M. he was returning to his home after attending the call of nature and reached near the house of Deo Nandan Singh. The aforesaid Deo Nandan Singh asked him to not go through the road and started abusing him but when P.W.4., Shanker Singh made objection, the accused, Kameshwar Singh being armed with lathi, appellant, Parmeshwar Singh armed with farsa and the aforesaid Deo Nandan Singh armed with bhala encircled him. Thereafter, P.W.4. tried to flee from there but aforesaid Deo Nandan Singh gave bhala blow causing injury on his abdomen whereas accused, Kameshwar Singh assaulted him with lathi causing injury on his left thigh and left hand. The P.W.4. raised alarm which attracted Prabhat Singh but appellant, Parmeshwar Singh gave farsa blow to aforesaid Prabhat Singh causing injury on his head and furthermore, Kameshwar Singh also assaulted the aforesaid Prabhat Singh. He further stated that one Parshuram Singh also came at their rescue but Deo Nandan Singh gave bhala blow to him causing injury on his right shoulder and Bisheshwar Singh assaulted him with churi. On hue and cry, villagers came there and saved their lives and after the aforesaid occurrence, injured persons were taken to hospital where Ferdbeyan of P.W.4. was recorded which is Exhibit-3. 5. On hue and cry, villagers came there and saved their lives and after the aforesaid occurrence, injured persons were taken to hospital where Ferdbeyan of P.W.4. was recorded which is Exhibit-3. 5. On the basis of aforesaid Ferdbeyan, Baniapur P.S. Case No. 137 of 1985 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 307, 323, 341 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report was drawn against the appellants and others under the above stated sections which is Exhibit-1. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellants and two others, namely, Deo Nandan Singh and Kameshwar Singh but during course of trial, Deo Nandan Singh Singh and Kameshwar Singh died and, accordingly, proceeding against them was dropped. 6. The Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, in usual way. 7. The appellants along with above stated two accused persons were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant no. 1 was, separately, charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no. 2 was also, separately, charged for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 8. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined, altogether, eight witnesses and also got exhibited some documentary evidence including the injury reports of injured persons of this case. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story. The defence also examined one witness and got exhibited some documentary evidences. 9. The learned trial court having scrutinized the materials available on the record acquitted the appellants of the charge framed under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them in the manner as stated above. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that there was case and counter case between the parties and the appellants and other accused had also sustained injury on their persons on the alleged date of occurrence and the aforesaid fact was clearly admitted by the P.W.2. at para 7 of his cross examination as well as P.W.3. at para 7 of his cross examination as well as P.W.3. at para 4 of his cross examination and, therefore, the aforesaid fact clearly goes to show that the prosecution has not come with clean hand and suppressed the real facts. He further contended that as a matter of fact, the prosecution party was aggressor and the appellants and other accused, even if it assumed, caused injury to injured persons of this case, then also, the appellants and other accused caused injuries to injured persons of this case in their defence. He further submitted that prosecution witnesses have made contradictory statements and almost all the prosecution witnesses are related to each others and, therefore, no reliance can safely be placed upon the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 11. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that prosecution witnesses have not only proved the place of occurrence as well as manner of occurrence but they have also proved the injury found on the person of injured and, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants. 12. On perusal of record, I find that P.W.1. is a formal witness and he has proved formal first information report as Exhibit-1. 13. P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, and P.W.6. are said to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence. P.W.7. is a police personnel, who had recorded the Ferdbeyan of P.W.4. and investigated the case. P.W.8., is doctor, who had examined the injured persons of this case. 14. P.W.8., the doctor, Vishun Kant Gupta has stated that on 19.07.1985. at 11:45 A.M. he examined P.W.4. in Sadar Hospital, Chapra and found the injuries on his person and this witness found altogether three injuries on the person of P.W.4. and out of them he found one injury caused by sharp penetrating object. He further stated that on the same day, he examined injured, Prabhat Singh and injured Parshuram Singh. This witness proved the injury reports of aforesaid injured persons. 15. The statement of this witness corroborates this fact that on 19.07.1985 injuries were present on the person of P.W.4. and other injured of this case. 16. P.W.2. and P.W.3. supported the prosecution story and stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, P.W.4., P.W.5. as well as P.W.6. were assaulted by the appellants and their associates with different weapons. 17. P.W.4. and other injured of this case. 16. P.W.2. and P.W.3. supported the prosecution story and stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, P.W.4., P.W.5. as well as P.W.6. were assaulted by the appellants and their associates with different weapons. 17. P.W.4. is the informant of this case. He also supported the factum of assault and similarly, P.W.5. and P.W.6. are injured persons of this case and they, too, supported the factum of assault. 18. No doubt, P.W.2. and P.W.3. admitted that on the alleged date of occurrence they had seen injuries on the person of accused persons of this case and there is admission of the prosecution witnesses that there was case and counter case between the parties but mere filing of counter case does not demolish the prosecution case because both the cases would be decided on their own merit. As I have already stated that the injured persons of this case supported the story of assault which is corroborated by P.W.8 who had examined the injured after the occurrence, I am of the opinion that the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and, there is no scope for this court to interfere into the above stated finding of learned trial court. 19. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1985 and the appellants faced trial before the trial court till 23.03.2001 when the judgment was pronounced and furthermore, it has come in depositions of prosecution witnesses that appellants and P.W.4. are agnates and there was land dispute between the parties. So, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, in my view, it would meet the ends of justice, if the appellants are sentenced to period already undergone by them in course of trial. 20. Accordingly, it is held that appellants are sentenced to period already undergone by them in course of trial. 21. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this criminal appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence order. Appeal dismissed.