Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 851 (PAT)

Mahesh Ravidas v. State of Bihar

2014-08-06

AMARESH KUMAR LAL, DHARNIDHAR JHA

body2014
ORAL JUDGMENT Per: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE DHARNIDHAR JHA The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 08.10.1991 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No.419 of 1990/06 of 1990 by which, while acquitting the remaining nine accused persons of various charges, the learned trial Judge held the appellant of guilty of offences under Section 302 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and after hearing him on sentence on 09.10.1991 directed him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant had chosen to appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence before this Court. 2. As may appear from the fardbayan (Ext-6) of P.W.5 Baijni Ravidas who happened to be the father of the deceased Baudhu Ravidas, the story is in two parts. First incident was dated 07.09.1988 when P.W.2 Chhote Ravidas was coming back to his home after plying rickshaw in Biharsharif when accused Devendra Ravidas, Deo Sharan Ravidas, Musafir Ravidas and Sita Ravidas surrounded him and assaulted him because there was some title suit pending in respect of a land in between the above named accused and the informant. When the daughter of the informant, namely, P.W.3 Baraki Devi @ Rita Devi intervened to save her brother, she was also brick-batted and she received injuries on that account. It is stated that on 08.09.1988 when the deceased Baudhu Ravidas was going towards the field to ease himself, this appellant Mahesh Ravidas with acquitted accused Keshar Ravidas, Makhadu Ravidas, Bhothali Ravidas, Naradmuni Ravidas and Tuntun Ravidas accosted him and surrounded him. Out of the above named accused, appellant Mahesh Ravidas was carrying a rifle whereas acquitted accused Tuntun Ravidas was carrying a gun. It is stated that at the orders of acquitted accused Keshar Ravidas to shoot the deceased dead, the acquitted accused Makhadu Ravidas, Naradmuni Ravidas and Bhothali Ravidas caught the deceased from his back and this appellant Mahesh Ravidas, putting the barrel of his rifle on the right chest of the deceased Baudhu Ravidas, fired the shot as a result of which the deceased fell on the ground unconscious. The informant stated that on account of the hue and cry raised at the time of incident, Fekan Ravidas (not examined), Jageshwar Ravidas (not examined), Karu Das (P.W.1) and the younger son of the informant, namely, Chhote Ravidas (P.W.2) were attracted to the seen of occurrence and they had seen the killing of the deceased. The informant also claimed to have arrived after picking up the hue and cry raised during the incident. It was stated by the informant that while he was taking the deceased to hospital for treatment he died on way and the doctor present in the hospital in Biharsharif directed him to take the dead body to the police station. In the meantime, the police officer had arrived in the premises of the hospital where he had given his fardbeyan (Ext-6). 3. As may appear from the evidence of P.W.6 S.I. Birendra Kumar, after having recorded the fardbeyan of the informant P.W.5 drew up the FIR (Ext-5), he took up the investigation of the case. He held inquest upon the dead body and prepared the inquest report (Ext-4) and after preparing the dead body challan sent the dead body for postmortem examination. He recorded statements of the witnesses and also inspected the place of occurrence. It was a place by the side of a road near a well where the deceased had been accosted, captured and then was shot at. However, the investigating officer did not find any stain of blood or any mark of violence anywhere on the road or well and what he found was that there was a brinjal field which was situated at the eastern extreme of the road and was measuring 15 feet east to west and was by the side of the wall of the house of Baldeo Gope. It was found that there were blood stain marks over grass in the brinjal field. It was indicated as if the deceased had run for his life for about 20 feet after being shot at by crossing the kitchen garden of one Gauri Singh towards north but what appears further from the evidence of the investigating officer is that it was not as if he had run for his life rather as may appear from the evidence in paragraph-7 of P.W.6 that after being shot at the deceased had been dragged from the place of occurrence up to the brinjal field. The investigating officer had found dragging mark very clearly which indicated as if the deceased had been dragged from east to west after being shot and injured. The investigating officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and after obtaining the copy of the postmortem report and finding that there was material sufficient for sending up the accused persons submitted chargesheet against them. 4. During trial of the case a total number of eight witnesses were examined, out of whom, P.W.7 Dr. S.K.Jha had examined, P.W.2 Chhote Ravidas and P.W.3 Baraki Devi @ Rita Devi for their injuries which had allegedly been caused in the incident dated 07.09.1988. P.W.8 Dr. S.K.Jha had also held postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had prepared the postmortem examination report (Ext-10). P.W.6 is the investigating officer and P.W.5 was the informant himself, namely, Baijni Ravidas. P.W.4 Amlesh Singh had supported the incident of the deceased being shot at but he did not state as to who had fired the shot or who had participated in the commission of the occurrence. In support of the prosecution story, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 Karu Das, P.W.2 Chhote Das and P.W.3 Baraki Devi @ Rita Devi. 5. The learned trial Judge while scanning the evidence of witnesses had discarded the evidence of P.W.2 Chhote Ravidas on the ground that he did not inspire his confidence as he had arrived at the scene of occurrence after the occurrence was over. The learned trial Judge had relied upon the evidence of P.W.1 Karu Das and P.W.5 Baijni Ravidas to convict the solitary appellant while discarding the evidence relating to incident dated 07.09.1988 as also the participation of the accused persons, like Keshar Ravidas, Makhadu Ravidas, Naradmuni Ravidas and Bhothali Ravidas. Thus, what the learned trial Judge held was that the story regarding Keshar Ravidas having ordered to kill was not acceptable and further that the three accused, namely, Makhadu Ravidas, Naradmuni Ravidas and Bhothali Ravidas had caught the deceased from behind also did not appear an acceptable story. The learned trial Judge had held that the participation of the present appellant Mahesh Ravidas was not established by proving that he had definitely fired the shot upon the deceased. 6. The learned trial Judge had held that the participation of the present appellant Mahesh Ravidas was not established by proving that he had definitely fired the shot upon the deceased. 6. While arguing the present appeal, Sri Nawal Kishore Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant had referred to us the evidence on record and we find that the deceased as per the prosecution story had been murdered at about 6.30 A.M. on 08.09.1988. As per evidence of P.Ws.1 and 5, the occurrence had taken place by the side of the road near the well but, as we have already referred to the evidence of investigating officer in paragraph-7, there was dragging mark from that place up to the brinjal field indicating as if the deceased had been dragged and brought from near the wells up to the brinjal field. The witnesses, i.e., P.Ws.1 and 5 did not give any evidence that after having been shot and injured the deceased had run for his life rather the witnesses stated that he fell down there and did not move even an inch from the place of occurrence. The witnesses did not state that after having fallen down on the ground, the deceased by the appellant was dragged from the place near the well up to the brinjal field which was somewhere around 20 feet away from the well. This raises a serious doubt in our mind as to how the deceased had been dragged from the well up to the brinjal field and if the witnesses were present, then why they were silent on such important aspect of the prosecution case. 7. The learned trial Judge had also some doubt in his mind as to how the deceased had reached the brinjal field but the learned trial Judge appears to have imagined the situation in absence of any evidence to support his inference that a young man of 25 years after having been shot at by the accused ought to have run for his life out of instinct in such a situation and thus, could have traversed the distance of about 18-20 feet which was in between the well and the brinjal field. There was no evidence to support that the deceased had indeed fallen in the brinjal field. There was no evidence to support that the deceased had indeed fallen in the brinjal field. Therefore, he had run and, as such, he reached the brinjal field could be the only inference especially when we have already referred to the evidence of the investigating officer who had given his objective finding that he had found dragging mark right from the place near the well across the road and up to the brinjal field. This equally creates serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution evidence as to how the deceased was dragged down up to the brinjal field and by whom. 8. The initial story relating to 07.09.1988 which had probably precipitated into the final act of murder of Baudhu Ravidas was discarded by the learned trial Judge. The story of acquitted accused Keshar Ravidas having ordered to kill was also not accepted by the learned trial Judge. Again, the participation of three acquitted accused, Makhadu Ravidas, Naradmuni Ravidas and Bhothali Ravidas who were alleged to have caught the deceased from behind was also rejected. The reason which was assigned by the learned trial Judge was that while three acquitted accused persons were catching hold of the deceased, their four companion would not have find into the chest of the deceased, thus to incur chances of endangering his own companions. We fully concur with the reason given by the learned trial Judge that the story of catching hold of the deceased makes it extremely improbable while the present appellant Mahesh Ravidas had fired a shot from as close a range as to cause charring and so as to incurring another danger to his accompanying accused persons who could also the chances of being hit by pellet or bullet. The story appears extremely improbable. 9. What appears to us from the evidence is and what was suggested by the defence in the trial court was, that the deceased Baudhu Ravidas indeed was a man of bad character and probably no one had seen him being accosted and killed by the real authors of the offence. The story appears extremely improbable. 9. What appears to us from the evidence is and what was suggested by the defence in the trial court was, that the deceased Baudhu Ravidas indeed was a man of bad character and probably no one had seen him being accosted and killed by the real authors of the offence. The background of enmity between the parties which was admitted by the informant in the very first information report as also in his evidence was probably the reason raising a suspicion in his mind on account of losing his son and that was again a reason for him to spin out a story implicating his enemies, like, the present set of appellant and others. Thus, what we find is that the case rested on an apriori suspicion that it were the accused persons who committed the offence and the informant came forward to lodge the FIR and further came into the dock to support the story. 10. After having appraised of the evidence of the prosecution what appears to us is that it was a case which had not been proved to the hilt and, as such, entitled the solitary appellant Mahesh Ravidas to acquittal. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed upon the solitary appellant Mahesh Ravidas by acquitting him of the charges he had been found guilty of. The present appellant Mahesh Ravidas is on bal. He is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. Appeal allowed.