Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 759 (PAT)

Ragho Singh v. State of Bihar

2015-05-18

NILU AGRAWAL, V.N.SINHA

body2015
V.N. SINHA, J.:–During pendency of this appeal appellant nos. 3, 7 left of their heavenly abode, as such, their appeal abates. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State. 3. By filing this appeal appellants have assailed judgment/ order dated 27.02.1993/ 01.03.1993, passed by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 59/79 whereunder out of seven accused put on trial accused nos. 1 and 6 have been convicted for the offences under Sections 307, 148 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence has been awarded to them under Section 148 of the Penal Code. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been convicted for the offences under Sections 307/149, 147 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years but no separate sentence has been awarded under Section 147 of the Penal Code. 4. Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of Ram Nath Singh, resident of Village Awerdah, P.S. Taraiya recorded in Sadar Hospital, Chapra on 23.10.1974 at 2.00 P.M. by A.S.I. S.K. Singh is that on the same day informant along with his brother Prabhunath Singh was ploughing the land on the boundary of which there are five Sisam trees. There was altercation between the informant and his brother on the one side and the agnate, the accused persons on the other the previous day for felling those five trees, whereafter a panchayati was held by Ram Ayodhya Singh and others named in the fardbeyan. The punches held that the five Sisam trees belong to the informant and his brother. Around 8.30 in the morning accused persons variously armed with spear, farsa and other deadly weapons came to the land and forcibly wanted to fell the five trees. Informant and his brother asked the accused persons not to forcibly fell the trees and abide by the resolution of the punches. It is further stated in the fardbeyan that the accused persons resorted to assault causing injury on the person of the informant and his brother. Informant and his brother having become injured were brought to Sadar Hospital, Chapra and recorded the fardbeyan. It is further stated in the fardbeyan that the accused persons resorted to assault causing injury on the person of the informant and his brother. Informant and his brother having become injured were brought to Sadar Hospital, Chapra and recorded the fardbeyan. The scribe of the fardbeyan read over the contents to the informant, who having found the contents true put his signature over the fardbeyan whereafter scribe forwarded the fardbeyan to the Officer-in-Charge, Taraiya Police Station for registration of the First Information Report, on the basis of which Officer-in-Charge, Taraiya Police Station registered Taraiya P.S. Case No. 11 dated 25.10.1974 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307/323 of the Penal Code and took up its investigation. In the light of the fardbeyan, injury report of the informant and his two brothers as also police statement of the witnesses charge-sheet was submitted finding the case true. In the light of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after supply of police papers case was committed to the court of Sessions. Sessions Court framed charges against the seven accused persons under order dated 01.06.1984 to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In support of the charge prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. P.W. 1 Ram Ayodhya Singh is a villager who is said to be one of the punches conducting panchayati between the members of the prosecution party and the accused persons on 22.10.1974 with regard to the ownership of five Sisam trees. P.Ws. 2, 4 Bishwanath Singh, Prabhunath Singh are the two brothers of the informant, who are said to have suffered injury in the occurrence. P.W. 5 Prabhunath Singh is the informant of the case. Evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 Prabhunath Singh, Rajendra Singh has been expunged as both have chosen not to appear for cross-examination, though P.W. 3 was later examined, cross-examined as P.W. 4. P.W. 6 Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad is the Medical Officer who examined the three injured on the date of occurrence. 6. Evidence of P.Ws. 3, 7 Prabhunath Singh, Rajendra Singh has been expunged as both have chosen not to appear for cross-examination, though P.W. 3 was later examined, cross-examined as P.W. 4. P.W. 6 Dr. Sidheshwar Prasad is the Medical Officer who examined the three injured on the date of occurrence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the prosecution story, as set out in the fardbeyan of P.W. 5 dated 23.10.1974, is not the true and complete version of the occurrence, as thereunder the informant has not disclosed the other part of the occurrence took place at the same time, place and in the same transaction in which the informant and his two brothers suffered injury as Nand Kishore Singh, full brother of one of the appellants also suffered injury on the same time, place and died on the same day i.e. 23.10.1974 at about 4:00 P.M. It has not been indicated as to how Nand Kishore Singh suffered injury on the same day and time. It is further submitted that the story that in the previous evening there was panchayati about the ownership of five Sisam trees raised on the ridge of the plot, which is said to have been ploughed by the informant and his brothers on the date of occurrence, is wholly imaginary as no such panchayati ever took place on 22.10.1974. It is also submitted that the accused persons had their land in the adjoining plot over which five Sisam trees have been raised by the appellants and it was the informant who wanted to fell those trees, which was protested by the informant and his brother and resisted by Nand Kishore Singh, who was assaulted by the informant in the same transaction for which Taraiya P.S. Case No. 10 dated 25.10.1974 was registered by Nand Kishore Singh, who suffered spear injury at the instance of the informant and his brother and succumbed to the injuries on the same day at about 4.00 P.M., as would appear from the certified copy of the post mortem report (Exhibit D). In this connection, learned counsel also referred to the judgment rendered by the trial court in connection with Taraiya P.S. Case No. 10 dated 25.10.1974 (Exhibit-E) and submitted that the court below in the said case has found that assault on the person of the informant and his two brothers in the present case as also Nand Kishore Singh, deceased of Taraiya P.S. Case No. 10 dated 25.10.1974 was made in the same transaction and referred to the findings recorded by the court below in paragraph 11 page 19, 20 and paragraph 15 page 29. 7. From the materials on record, it is quite evident that quarrel between the informant of this case and his brother on the one side and Nand Kishore Singh and the appellants on the other took place in the morning of 23.10.1974 about the ownership of five Sisam trees, in the light of the quarrel the parties also assaulted each other in which informant, his brothers suffered injury together with Nand Kishore Singh and one Daroga Singh. First Information Report of the present case, however, does not disclose about the assault on the person of Nand Kishore Singh and Daroga Singh. In the circumstances, there cannot be two opinion that part of the story about the assault between the parties to settle the question of ownership of the five Sisam trees has not been reported in the fardbeyan of the present case, which is a serious lacuna about the unfolding of the prosecution story. 8. The Investigating Officer of the case has also not been examined to explain the circumstances in which during investigation of the present case he has not taken note of the factum of assault on the person of Nand Kishore Singh leading to his death. In the circumstances, the appellants deserve grant of benefit of doubt and are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 9. In the result, appeal is allowed, impugned judgment/order is set aside. Appellants are on bail, are discharged from the liability of their respective bail bonds.