Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 665 (PAT)

State of Bihar v. Prabhu Bhagat

2014-06-17

ANJANA PRAKASH, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE SHRI. JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 23.08.1991 passed by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai in Sessions Case No.232 of 1986/82 of 1987 by which the respondents were acquitted of charge under Sections 302/149 IPC. Out of six respondents, respondent no.4 Ganesh Singh, who had been charged also under Section 302 IPC, was acquitted of that charge too. In addition to the present Govt. Appeal filed by the State of Bihar, the informant has also filed the connected Cr. Revision petition challenging the same judgment of acquittal which is impugned in the present government appeal. 2. The prosecution story as contained in the fardbeyan (Ext-3) of the informant Chandra Bhushan Singh (P.W.5) was that he along with his brother and father were sleeping at his bathan (cattle shed). His brother Chandra Shekhar Singh was sleeping on a Machan in the northern part of the cattle shed. The father of the deceased, namely, Bishundeo Singh (P.W.1) was sleeping on the floor of the Bathan. It so happened that at about 2 A.M. the informant picked up the cries of his brother who was shouting for help and on that he and his father rushed towards his brother to find that the respondents had caught hold of Chandra Shekhar Singh and accused Ganesh Singh fired from his pistol. It is further alleged that respondent no.1 Prabhu Bhagat gave a bhala blow at the orders of respondent Ganesh Singh and that blow fell on the head of the deceased on which he fell down on the ground. The other accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathies and on hulla being raised and persons converging upon the place of occurrence, the accused persons made good their escape. 3. It appears that initial story of assault was confined only to deceased Chandra Shekhar Singh, but in the closing lines of the fardbeyan, the informant alleged that on account of assault wielded by the accused persons, not only his brother Chandra Shekhar Singh but also one another person had been killed. As regards the motive of commission of offence, the informant stated that murders had been committed on account of land dispute. 4. As regards the motive of commission of offence, the informant stated that murders had been committed on account of land dispute. 4. The defence of the accused persons was that they had falsely been implicated due to suspicion and indeed it was a blind murder committed in the cover of darkness and no one indeed had seen as to who had committed the twin murders. The accused persons also pleaded that they did not have any land dispute with the informant. 5. The learned trial Judge had held that there was no source of light at the place of occurrence and the story of flashing torch lights so as to identifying the assailant of the two deceased and seeing the occurrence was concocted. It was also found by the learned trial Judge that the motive for which the occurrence had been allegedly committed by the accused persons was palpably false and was not established in spite of there being many houses around the place of occurrence. No independent persons had come forward to support the prosecution charges. 6. Sri Dilip Kumar Sinha, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was submitting that in a case of direct evidence establishing the motive was of no substance and under the situation of the witnesses having slept side by side with the deceased in the same cattle-shed it could be said that they were natural witnesses. Submission, as such, was that the verdict of no guilty retained by the learned trial Judge appears quite perverse and, as such, requires no interference by this Court. 7. We have examined the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in the light of the evidence available to us on the paper book. There were two witnesses who had projected themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence, those were P.W.1 Bishundeo Singh and P.W.5 Chandra Bhushan Singh. In addition to them other witnesses had also supported the allegation as eye witnesses but as appears found by the learned trial Judge, witnesses were all family members and related to the deceased. There were two witnesses who had projected themselves as eye witnesses to the occurrence, those were P.W.1 Bishundeo Singh and P.W.5 Chandra Bhushan Singh. In addition to them other witnesses had also supported the allegation as eye witnesses but as appears found by the learned trial Judge, witnesses were all family members and related to the deceased. The prosecution had set up story of the cattle shed being located at the secluded place, but the evidence on record indicates as may appear from the cross-examination of all the witnesses that there were many houses around the place of occurrence which were inhabited by the persons who did not hold any interest in the prosecution of the appellants. As such, the case appears supported only by related and interested persons. It is true that the prosecution has claimed that the father of the deceased and the informant were also sleeping inside the cattle shed but this fact has also been decided on the balance of probability on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution. 8. The best test for deciding as to whether the witnesses, like, the informant and his father were present inside the cattle shed in the fateful night which has been considered, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge very elaborately, while the learned trial Judge was considering the availability of light at the time of occurrence in the cattle shed. The very story put forth by the prosecution that the witnesses had flashed their torch lights so as to identifying the assailants of the two deceased as also to pick up the manner of occurrence in itself is a sufficient indicator that there was no light present at the scene of occurrence and the light was created by flashing the torches. The learned trial Judge has considered this aspect of the matter at page no.16 of the judgment with reference to the evidence of witnesses. We find that those witnesses were very elaborately cross-examined during the course of trial as regards the torch light and its production/non-production before the investigating officer. There was no evidence that the torches were produced by the witnesses before the investigating officer, rather the witnesses stated that they had lost the torch on account of the torches having been destroyed. We find that those witnesses were very elaborately cross-examined during the course of trial as regards the torch light and its production/non-production before the investigating officer. There was no evidence that the torches were produced by the witnesses before the investigating officer, rather the witnesses stated that they had lost the torch on account of the torches having been destroyed. The evidence which we have just referred to are definitely inventions of the witnesses so as to camouflaging, the real story. As regards the availability of the light at the scene of occurrence, we find strong probability emerging from the evidence indicating that in fact the witnesses had no means of light with them so as to projecting light in order to identifying the accused and seeing the manner of occurrence. If it was so then it could be an ordinary inference to be raised that the claim of the prosecution witnesses that they were present at the scene of occurrence is extremely doubtful. This reason has found favour with us and we uphold the finding of the learned trial Judge as regards the source of light and also the claim of the witnesses regarding their presence at the scene of occurrence. Once we have rejected the presence of the witnesses, then we do not have any option than to point out that their statements or evidence was the evidence of interested persons who were coming into the witness box with pre-determined mind and motive of stating false-hood in such a way as to making it acceptable to the court so that the ultimate result of conviction of the accused persons could be had. Once the witnesses are found motivated and interested to the extent we have just noted, then it was always unsafe to place reliance on such class of witnesses. 9. The motive of the occurrence being land dispute between the parties, the whole plethora of evidence which was produced before the trial court, did not contain any chit of paper so as to establishing the dispute and there was no description of land for which the parties were disputing each other’s claims. It was oral and devoid of any details which could simply not be sufficient to convince our judicial conscience that indeed the crime could have been committed in such a manner for land and there was dispute for property as was alleged by the prosecution. It was oral and devoid of any details which could simply not be sufficient to convince our judicial conscience that indeed the crime could have been committed in such a manner for land and there was dispute for property as was alleged by the prosecution. 10. These are the two grounds which have emerged from the evidence of the prosecution creating serious doubt in the veracity of the prosecution charges, as a result of which we find that the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the judgment was perverse could not be accepted. We find that the view taken by the learned trial Judge was also a probable view on the evidence available on record and in that view, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the connected revision petition. Accordingly, the appeal as well as the revision petition are dismissed.