Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 839 (PAT)

Gaffar Mian v. State of Bihar

2014-08-05

JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA, NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH The present appeal has been preferred by the five appellants, who are all family members, against the judgment of conviction dated 06.09.1991 passed by the VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif, by which they have all been convicted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short `I.P.C.’) and by order dated 09.09.1991 the same court has sentenced appellants no. 1, 3 and 5 to life imprisonment, while appellant no.2 has been sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and appellant no.4 has been sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment. 2. At the very outset, we are surprised to notice how appellants no. 2 and 4 having been convicted under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C., they could be awarded sentences of less than life imprisonment by the trial court. However, notices were issued to them with regard to enhancement of the said sentences in the event of their conviction being upheld. The trial Judge upon being asked has apologized for the inadvertent mistake committed by him in awarding the said sentences to those appellants. 3. We may also notice here that the prosecution party and the accused are close agnates, as appellant no. 4 Abdul Gani Mian is the brother of the deceased Noor Mian’s grand father. So far as the appellants are concerned, appellant no.4 appears to be the grand father of appellant no.5 Sattar Mian, appellant no.1 Gaffar Mian is the brother of Sattar Mian, appellant no. 2 Kolsum Khatoon is the wife of Sattar Mian, whereas, appellant no.3 Azim Mian is the son of appellant no.5. It may be noticed here that along with these appellants one Kalim Mian was also tried, but he died before the judgment. He was also the son of Sattar Mian and it is he, who had virtually given fatal blow to the deceased by piercing knife through his chest. 4. When we come to the prosecution evidence, we find that P.W.3 Aslam Mian is the brother of the deceased Noor Mian and so is P.W.5 Fahim Mian. P.W. 4 Mahmood Mian is the father-in-law of Fahim Mian. P.W.6 Hasim Mian is the father of the deceased, whereas, P.W.7 Rukhsana Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.8 Nazma Khatoon is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 9 Koresa Khatoon is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 4 Mahmood Mian is the father-in-law of Fahim Mian. P.W.6 Hasim Mian is the father of the deceased, whereas, P.W.7 Rukhsana Khatoon is the daughter of the deceased. P.W.8 Nazma Khatoon is the wife of the deceased and P.W. 9 Koresa Khatoon is the mother of the deceased. P.W. 10 Mohiuddin Mian (informant) is the uncle of the deceased. The rest of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Shiv Nandan Das and P.W.2 Arjun Prasad are witnesses to the inquest and the material seizure list. P.W.11 is Dr. Bidu Bhushan Singh, who conducted the post-mortem examination and gave his report. P.W. 12 is Umesh Chandra Dubey, who is the Investigating Officer. 5. Defence has not examined any witness nor led any evidence whatsoever. The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of P.W.10 Mohiuddin Mian, inter-alia, alleging that in the evening at about 7P.M. on 30.07.1985, the appellants along with Kalim Mian chased the deceased Noor Mian and having pushed him to ground near Nad, while Gaffar Mian and Azim Mian pushed him to ground, upon orders of Abdul Gani Mian, Kalim Mian first stabbed him in the chest and then Sattar Mian stabbed him in the abdomen. This was witnessed by the family members of the prosecution party. The reason for this unfortunate crime was that Noor Mian and Sattar Mian were both in the business of buying and selling cows and goats and they had serious differences between them in this regard. 6. It would first be convenient to take up the case of appellant no.2 Kolsum Khatoon. As noted above, she is the wife of Sattar Mian (appellant no.5). In the fardbeyan, which is Ext.3, lodged by P.W.10 Mohiuddin Mian, all that is said about her role is that she was also with other appellants unarmed and shouting `maro-maro’. We then have evidence of different witnesses, who have ascribed her different roles, for one prosecution witness says that she had pushed the deceased to the ground, the other witness says that she was holding the deceased to the ground. The other witness says that she was merely standing there instigating rest to kill Noor Mian. 7. We then have evidence of different witnesses, who have ascribed her different roles, for one prosecution witness says that she had pushed the deceased to the ground, the other witness says that she was holding the deceased to the ground. The other witness says that she was merely standing there instigating rest to kill Noor Mian. 7. If we see the varying evidence, coupled with the motive being business dispute between appellant Sattar Mian and the deceased, it does not seem to be believable that the lady would have any role to play, but she has been roped in along with other family members in the instant case. Her husband and her two sons have been also made accused. In our view, it would be safe to hold that so far as appellant no.2 Kolsum Khatoon is concerned, the evidence is not consistent nor is there any reason that she would participate in such a gruesome crime and, thus, we have to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt so far as she is concerned, entitling her to benefit of doubt and complete acquittal, but that, in our view, would not enure to the benefit of other appellants. 8. In order to establish the prosecution case, as noticed above, prosecution has examined twelve witnesses. It may be noted that initially there was no charge-sheet filed by the Police in respect of Kolsum Khatoon and Abdul Gani Mian. Initially only four persons were charge-sheeted and committed to the court of session for trial. They were Gaffar Mian, Azium Mian, Sattar Mian and Kalim Mian, who died before the judgment. When the evidence commenced on behalf of the prosecution and the role of Kolsum Khatoon and Abdul Gani Mian having transpired, in exercise of powers under section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were also summoned and charged with the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. along with others. The evidence was then started de novo and the prosecution witnesses were, thus, examined afresh. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are independent witnesses to the inquest that was prepared. P.W. 11 is Dr. Bidu Bhushan Singh, who had categorically found upon post-mortem examination that there was a stabbing wound on the chest, which was 4” deep and which was the main cause of death. He also found a stabbing wound in the abdominal area. P.Ws. 1 and 2 are independent witnesses to the inquest that was prepared. P.W. 11 is Dr. Bidu Bhushan Singh, who had categorically found upon post-mortem examination that there was a stabbing wound on the chest, which was 4” deep and which was the main cause of death. He also found a stabbing wound in the abdominal area. We have noticed this aspect of the matter at this stage itself because chest wound, which proved fatal, was inflicted by Kalim Mian, but stabbing wound in the abdomen was inflicted by appellant Sattar Mian, which is the consistent evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, who saw the occurrence. Therefore, the evidence of Dr. Bidu Bhushan Singh fully supports the prosecution version. 9. We then have the evidence of Investigating Officer P.W.12 Umesh Chandra Dubey. He has clearly delineated the place of occurrence and the place from where the body was recovered. Statements of various witnesses, recorded during the course of investigation, were put to him and specifically with regard to the informant Mohiuddin Mian (P.W.10), Aslam Mian (P.W.3) and Fahim Mian (P.W.5). The contradictions are immaterial; inasmuch as they only relate to the names of witnesses as disclosed. These are not contradictions in relation to the manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and the persons involved in the occurrence and their respective roles. The evidence is unshaken. 10. Now we come to the evidence of such witnesses, who had seen the occurrence and who, as noted earlier, are all closely related. P.W.3 Aslam Mian is the brother of the deceased. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that he had accompanied the informant to the Police Station to give the statement. Rest of the P.Ws. i.e. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are consistent in their evidence and have remained unshaken. Their evidence is that there being a dispute between appellant Sattar Mian and deceased Noor Mian, Abdul Gani Mian, who was grand-uncle of the deceased, told the appellants to kill Noor Mian and he would handle all the situations. i.e. P.Ws. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are consistent in their evidence and have remained unshaken. Their evidence is that there being a dispute between appellant Sattar Mian and deceased Noor Mian, Abdul Gani Mian, who was grand-uncle of the deceased, told the appellants to kill Noor Mian and he would handle all the situations. When Noor Mian came to know of this, he immediately came to Abdul Gani Mian protesting and requesting that he (Abdul Gani Mian), being elder in the family, ought to have sorted out the differences and it is upon this that other appellants then started shouting `maro-maro’, whereupon Noor Mian ran out of the house, but he was chased and at a short distance he was pushed to the ground and then was stabbed by Kalim Mian and appellant Sattar Mian in presence of his grand-uncle, who was ordering the rest to kill. The houses of appellant Sattar Mian and deceased Noor Mian are adjacent to each other in the village. All other houses in the close vicinity belonged to the same family. Unfortunately, the only suggestion consistently given by the defence to the prosecution is about absence of independent witnesses as the village is of about 200 houses and population whereof is of over one thousand. 11. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. points out that the evidence clearly shows that the villagers did come to the place of occurrence, but as the occurrence took place in such a short span of time they came after Noor Mian had died. In the close vicinity of the family houses, only family members could be witnesses. There was no point in getting independent witnesses, who had not seen the occurrence. 12. We may note once again that there is not even a single suggestion given to any witness by the defence that, in fact, Noor Mian was killed else where and his dead body was brought and kept there. There is no challenge to the place of occurrence. That being so absence of independent witnesses cannot enure to the benefit of the accused. 13. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that all the witnesses are interested witnesses. There is no challenge to the place of occurrence. That being so absence of independent witnesses cannot enure to the benefit of the accused. 13. It is also argued on behalf of the appellants that all the witnesses are interested witnesses. Having considered this aspect once again, in our view, merely because the witnesses belonged to a particular family and can be termed as interested witnesses, it does not mean that their evidence automatically stands disbelieved. The situation of the place of occurrence being such and the dispute being between the two agnates, who else would be witness, obviously it would be only immediate family members. The closeness of the relationship is evident from the fact that P.W.10 Mohiuddin Mian in his fardbeyan and the evidence clearly says that when appellant Abdul Gani Mian gave order for killing Noor Mian and Noor Mian came to know of it, he immediately came to Abdul Gani Mian protesting and requesting that he could have sorted out the differences using his position in the family, but what he did was that he ordered for Noor Mian being killed. It is upon this that every one there chased Noor Mian, pushed him to the ground and appellant Sattar Mian and accused Kalim Mian stabbed him. The Bathan having Nad, where the occurrence took place, is at equal distance from both sides and would be about 10 yards apart. If immediate family members cannot be said to be fruitful witnesses then who else will come. So far as the evidence of interested witnesses is concerned, the Court has to be cautious while considering such evidence, but that does not mean that their evidence has to be altogether discarded on the ground of interestedness. In the situation as in the present case, they are the only witnesses available. Thus, we cannot accept the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that merely because all the witnesses belonged to one family and are interested witnesses, their evidence have to be discarded. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants then draws attention of the Court to the post-mortem report. He points out that fatal injury is injury no.1, which is stabbing wound to the chest. That is attributed to accused Kalim Mian, who died during the course of trial. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants then draws attention of the Court to the post-mortem report. He points out that fatal injury is injury no.1, which is stabbing wound to the chest. That is attributed to accused Kalim Mian, who died during the course of trial. He points out that second wound in the abdomen is attributed to appellant Sattar Mian is not fatal and as such appellant Sattar Mian ought not be held guilty under Section 302 of the I.P.C. Similarly he submits that appellants Gaffar Mian and Azim Mian were merely holding the deceased and appellant Abdul Gani Mian was only ordering and instigating them to kill. They cannot be punished under Section 302 of the I.P.C. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants is correct that none of the persons than Kalim Mian could be charged under Section 302 of the I.P.C., but unfortunately the charge is not under Section 302 of the I.P.C. simplicitor. The charge is under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Section 34 of the I.P.C. clearly provides a common intention and once the intention is common in the group of persons then any overt act by one automatically makes the others liable whether others have done any overt act or not. That we will consider here. It is very clear from the evidence of the prosecution, which has remained unshaken that appellant Abdul Gani Mian had instigated and ordered for killing of the deceased. It is pursuant thereto that all the appellants then chased Noor Mian, who was then immediately killed in presence of all the appellants. Thus, the group’s intention to kill is writ large from these facts and stands established. That being so, irrespective of their acts in course of occurrence, they are all equally liable. Thus, their conviction under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. cannot be interfered with and as such is upheld. 16. Thus, in view of the consistent evidence, which has not been shaken in any manner, with regard to place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and role played by the said appellants, there is no option but to uphold their conviction and sentence under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment as awarded by the trial court to appellant no. 4 Abdul Gani Mian is enhanced to that of life imprisonment. 4 Abdul Gani Mian is enhanced to that of life imprisonment. That being so, the appeal on behalf of appellants no. 1, 3, 4 and 5 is dismissed as devoid of merit. They must surrender to serve out the remaining sentence. So far as appellant no.2 Kolsum Khatoon is concerned, the appeal on her behalf is allowed and she is acquitted of the charge levelled against her and as a consequence of her acquittal, she is discharged from the liability of the bail bounds. 17. Let the lower court records be transmitted to the trial court forthwith. Appeal partly allowed.