Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 510 (PAT)

Ishwar Mahto @ Isho Mahto v. State of Bihar

2014-04-25

DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT DHARNIDHAR JHA, J. The solitary appellant was put on trial by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-VI, Begusarai after being indicted of committing offences under Sections 353 and 307 IPC in Sessions Trial No.175 of 1994 and by judgment of conviction dated 08.07.2002 was held guilty of committing the two offences. The appellant was heard under Section 235 Cr.P.C and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for being convicted under Section 353 IPC, else to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days. As regards the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC, he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant has come up before this Court through the present appeal to challenge the correctness and appropriateness of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him. 2. The self statement of S.I. Shyama Kant Jha, who was the officer-in-charge of town police station, Begusarai on 29.06.1993 is the basis of the prosecution case. It was stated by the informant that he along with the investigating officer of the case, namely, S.I. Krishana Kumar with some constables had left the police station for doing patrolling duty and they had parked there gipsy by the road side near the eastern level crossing in Begusarai. The informant found that an Ambassador Car bearing registration no.DHA-4119 was coming from the east and it was occupied by three persons. The driver was signalled to stop the car, but he speeded away, as a result of which, the informant along with S.I. Krishna Kumar started chasing the car. His own gipsy was driven by Hawaldar Hare Krishna Yadav (P.W. 5). It was stated that when the driver of the police gipsy had attempted to over take the Ambassador Car, it was made to dangle on the road in such a way as if the driver was either intending to create a collusion against the police vehicle or he was not inclined to allow the police vehicle to bypass it. It was stated that when the driver of the police gipsy had attempted to over take the Ambassador Car, it was made to dangle on the road in such a way as if the driver was either intending to create a collusion against the police vehicle or he was not inclined to allow the police vehicle to bypass it. The Superintendent of Police, Begusarai also joined the race and on one such occasion when the police vehicle had chased down the car up to about 12-13 kilometers P.W.5 Havildar Hare Krishna Yadav attempted to over take the Ambassador Car, the criminals started firing shots upon the police men which was retaliated by two shots being fired from his carbine by the personal guard of the Superintendent of Police, Begusarai. The criminals were frightened and scared and they, as such, put the vehicle on the down slide off the National High Way and after coming out of the vehicle started running away. Two succeeded in making their good escape, but this appellant was caught and arrested but he was not found bearing any incriminating article on his person. 3. The case was registered on the basis of Ext-1 by drawing up the FIR (Ext-2) and the investigation was handed over to S.I. Krishna Kumar (not examined) which ended in the submission of charge-sheet against the appellant. 4. It was stated by the informant that on account of the shot fired by the criminals, two little girls, namely, Rani Kumari and Sarita Kumari, examined as P.Ws.3 and 4 respectively and who were the daughters of Ashok Bhagat and Ganga Bhagat respectively, were injured after having received gun shots. 5. The self statement of P.W.6 was drawn up by him which was marked Ext-1 by the court below and on that basis the FIR of the case Ext-2 was drawn up. The investigation was handed over to S.I. Krishna Kumar (not examined) which ended in submission of the charge-sheet for the trial of the accused persons which ultimately culminated in passing of the impugned judgment. 6. Six witnesses were examined in support of the charges. Parents of the two little girls were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 Ashok Bhagat the father of P.W.3 Rani Kumari did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. P.W.2 Ganga Bhagat, the father of P.W.4 Sarita Kumari, was tendered for cross-examination. 6. Six witnesses were examined in support of the charges. Parents of the two little girls were examined as P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.1 Ashok Bhagat the father of P.W.3 Rani Kumari did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. P.W.2 Ganga Bhagat, the father of P.W.4 Sarita Kumari, was tendered for cross-examination. P.Ws.3 and 4, i.e., Rani Kumari and Sarita Kumari, who were alleged injured in firing indulged into by the criminals also did not support the story. P.W.5 Hare Krishana Yadav was the Havildar and driver of police gipsy who, though supported the incident, but did not identify the accused who was present in the dock stating that he did not identify the present appellant as a person who had been caught and arrested. As regards P.W.6 Shyama Kant Jha, he was supporting his own story but during cross-examination, he also stated that the appellant was not carrying any incriminating article on his person and thus, was indirectly pointing out to the Court that the appellant could not have fired the shot because the appellant was arrested immediately after he had ejected from the vehicle. Thus, the charge that the appellant had caused some obstruction into discharging the duty by a public servant by doing any act appears not established. Likewise, if the appellant was not carrying any weapon as appears from the circumstances and he had not fired any shot, then his conviction under Section 307 IPC may also not be sustainable in the eyes of law. 7. In the result, the appeal succeeds and the appellant is acquitted of the charge he had been found guilty of by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The appellant is on bail. He shall stands discharged from the liabilities of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.