Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 667 (PAT)

Jamuna Yadav @ Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-06-17

ANJANA PRAKASH, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA) The appellant in Cr.Appeal No.138 of 1991 i.e., Jamuna Yadav @ Singh and Joga Muni Yadav @ Singh have been convicted under Sections 302/109 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life whereas appellants in Cr.Appeal No.149 of 1991 Ugni Devi and Deo Barat Singh Yadav have been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case is that on 12.01.1982 at about 1 P.M. while the informant was washing clothes on a well he heard sound of his father that the accused persons were cutting the bamboo clumps to which he was protesting. On the protest of his father, the accused Jamuna Yadav and Joga Muni Yadav @ Singh exhorted the rest of the accused persons to assault him at which Appellants Ugni Devi and Deo Barat Singh Yadav are alleged to have assaulted him with bhala on various pars of his body on account of which he died. The first information report was instituted on the same day at 3.30 P.M. at the police station by the informant Rama Nand Singh (P.W.5), son of the deceased. During trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, relevant portion of which are being discussed for convenience hereinafter. 3. P.W.3 Keshwar Singh, P.W.4 Bansropan Muni and P.W.6 Vijay Narain Roy also examined as P.W.8 are formal witnesses who have proved Seizure List, Inquest Report and Post Mortem Examination Report as well as Case Diary respectively. 4. P.W.7 Dr. Radha Raman Prasad had held postmortem examination on the deceased Bali Singh Yadav and found several incised injuries on his body which in his opinion were caused by bhala. P.W.1 Lalan Singh and P.W.2 Ramjee Singh are the grand sons of the deceased who claimed to be eye witnesses. Similarly P.W.5 Ramnandan Singh Yadav who is the son of the deceased and Informant of the present case, also claims to be an eye witness. P.W.9 Satyadeo Singh is the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of occurrence and his evidence shall be discussed later. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 Lalan Singh one finds that he was reportedly at a nearby place uprooting potatoes when he heard shouts of his grand mother i.e. wife of the deceased. P.W.9 Satyadeo Singh is the Investigating Officer who inspected the place of occurrence and his evidence shall be discussed later. 5. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 Lalan Singh one finds that he was reportedly at a nearby place uprooting potatoes when he heard shouts of his grand mother i.e. wife of the deceased. When he arrived at the place of occurrence he found the Appellants Ugni Devi and Deo Barat Singh assaulting the deceased while Appellants Jamuna Yadav and Joga Muni Yadav were exhorting them. His uncle Ramnandan Singh (P.W.5) also came to the place of occurrence from the well and saw the deceased in an injured condition. He further stated that the Appellants were cutting the bamboo clumps nearby upon which the deceased had protested and then the assault had ensued. He accepts that there was previous enmity between the deceased and the Appellant Deo Barat Singh Yadav. He not only admits that he was the grand son of the deceased but also that he was the Uncle of Appellant Deo Barat Singh Yadav and brother-in-law (devor) of Appellant Ugni Devi. Thus it appears the parties belong to the same family. In his cross-examination, he concedes that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the deceased Bali Singh had already fallen on the ground indicating that he was not an eye witness to the occurrence. 6. P.W.2 Ramjee Singh states that at the time of occurrence, he was in his house when he heard the shouts of his grand father at which he went to the place of occurrence and saw the assault as mentioned by his cousin P.W.1. In paragraph-3 he states that number of persons had gathered at the place of occurrence on hearing the screams but none have been examined by the Prosecution. He in his cross-examination explains relationship between the Appellants and the Prosecution Parties as also admits that there were several litigations going on between the parties including a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In paragraph-9 he specifically conceded that when he reached at the place of occurrence, his grand father had already fallen on the ground in an injured condition which once again indicates that he was not an eye witness to the assault. He further elaborated that he did not see as to who had assaulted the deceased on which part. 7. He further elaborated that he did not see as to who had assaulted the deceased on which part. 7. P.W.5 Ramnandan Singh Yadav the informant, even though claims to be an eye witness to the occurrence but he also appears untrustworthy. The reason for such a conclusion is that in paragraph-10 he answered to a question by the Court that when he reached at the place of occurrence his father had already fallen on the ground and that assault had taken place before he had arrived. Therefore, in such circumstances his claim to be an eye witness is falsified. 8. Further when we examine the evidence of P.W.9 we find that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 75 yards from the house of the deceased. The Investigating Officer also noted that the distance of the well from the place of occurrence was 80-90 yards and the house of the deceased which was situated at a distance of 75 yards was in between. Thus the story of P.W.1 and P.W.5 being eye-witnesses is further rendered unreliable. 9. We, are therefore, inclined to hold that not only one the eye witnesses interested but also untrustworthy and the veracity of their evidence is under serious challenge. 10. It also appears that the house of the deceased was in busy locality but not a single independent witness has been examined by the Prosecution. This is especially important since P.W.1 had stated that number of persons of the locality had arrived at the place of occurrence and the Investigating Officer had admittedly examined 13-14 witnesses of them have been non-production of the independent witnesses by the Prosecution casts serious aspersion on the veracity of interested witnesses. 11. The Prosecution has no doubt proved the formal fact that the Doctor has opined that the deceased had sustained injuries on his body caused by bhala but it is of no relevance in the present facts of the case since the eye-witness account so far as complicity of the Appellant is concerned is held untrustworthy. 12. In the result, as stated above these appeals are allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges. They are also discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.