Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 978 (PAT)

Kriti Singh v. State of Bihar

2018-07-05

SANJAY PRIYA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Sanjay Priya, J. None appeared on behalf of the appellants. Mr. Arun Kr. Tripathi has been appointed as Amicus Curiae. Heard learned Amicus Curiae and learned for the State. 2. All the appellants stood convicted under Sections 304 Part-II/149, 341 and 147 of the I.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 304 Part-II/149 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine the convict will have to undergo further imprisonment of six months. They were further sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence under Section 341 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC. They were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. with a fine of Rs. 500/- each by the judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2009 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2009 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamui in Sessions Trial No.1093/1999 arising out of Sono P.S. Case No. 107/1998. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3. The learned counsel for appellants has submitted that only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. He has partly supported the case. The informant of this case has not been examined. The doctor has mentioned in the postmortem report that death occurred due to jaundice. The doctor has found simple injury on the person of the injured. It is further submitted that judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is bad in law. 4. Learned APP for the state, on the other hand, has submitted that one of the witness who has been examined on behalf of the prosecution has supported the case. The doctor has stated the cause of the death due to hepatic coma. It is further submitted that in the F.I.R., it is stated that the appellants have assaulted the brother of the informant. 5. The prosecution case, in nutshell, as per fardbeyan given by Radhe Yadav in Government hospital is that on 03.12.1998 at about 06.00 am all the appellants came to his darwaza. Lalo Singh told him that he had committed the theft of paddy of the appellants. The informant tried his best to assure the appellants that theft was not committed by them. Lalo Singh told him that he had committed the theft of paddy of the appellants. The informant tried his best to assure the appellants that theft was not committed by them. The informant had also taken oath that he had not committed the theft. It is further alleged that appellant Lalo Singh assaulted the informant with lathi. Two brothers of informant, namely Ganesh Yadav (since deceased) and Kisun Yadav and their mother Yoshada Devi came in order to rescue the informant, whereupon appellant Lalo Singh assaulted the brother of the informant with lathi on his head. He fell down on the ground. Girish Yadav and Tiro Singh assaulted him by lathi on his chest and stomach. When Kisun Yadav attempted to save him, the appellants assaulted him with lathi and Pappu Sinha assaulted him with fists and slaps. The mother of the informant was also assaulted by appellants with lathi, slaps and fists. It is further alleged that accused Kriti Singh asked the informant that he had not returned the paddy crops, and thereafter he assaulted the informant. The villagers assembled and rescued the injured persons. When the family members of informant tried to go to police station they were stopped by appellants. The accused persons were making a strong vigil so that the injured Ganesh Yadav could not be brought to the hospital, for several days. The condition of Ganesh Yadav continued deteriorating. He was stealthily brought to the hospital in night after several days. It has further been alleged that the accused persons have assaulted Ganesh Yadav (since deceased) on his head with intention to kill him. 6. The Court below, in order to prove the prosecution case, has examined only two witnesses. The trial Court has mentioned in the impugned judgment that the informant and Investigating Officer as well as other witnesses have not appeared although several steps have been taken by the Court to procure their attendance. 7. Kisun Yadav (PW1) is the brother of deceased Ganesh Yadav. This witness is not an eye-witness. He has stated in his evidence that in the morning, on the date of occurrence he was gong to plough his field. He heard hulla. He rushed to his house. He saw that accused Lalo Singh, Tiro Singh, Girish Singh, Pappu Sinha and Kriti Singh were assaulting his brother Ganesh Yadav with lathi. This witness is not an eye-witness. He has stated in his evidence that in the morning, on the date of occurrence he was gong to plough his field. He heard hulla. He rushed to his house. He saw that accused Lalo Singh, Tiro Singh, Girish Singh, Pappu Sinha and Kriti Singh were assaulting his brother Ganesh Yadav with lathi. Lalo Singh was assaulting on his head and other accused persons were assaulting with fists and lathi on his chest. Some accused persons have sat over chest of the deceased. The mother of this witness as well as his brother Radhey Yadav went there in order to save, then accused persons assaulted them with lathi. The brother of this witness Ganesh Yadav remained in the house for three days because the accused persons did not allow him to carry to the hospital. Thereafter, he was brought to Sono hospital. The doctor of Sono Hospital referred the injured to Patna. The deceased breathed his last while going to Patna. The reason given by this witness for the occurrence is that the paddy crop of the accused party was stolen. The accused persons have levelled allegation against the informant for committing the theft. This witness in his cross-examination has stated that the police has recorded his statement after four days of the death of his brother. Thereafter, cross-examination of this witness was deferred and he did not turn up thereafter. 8. Dr. Arun Kumar Singh (PW-2) has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He found rigour mortis was fully developed in all the four limbs of the dead body. He found three injuries as mentioned in the postmortem on the person of the deceased :- (1) Abrasion with blackish scalps ½" x ¼" over left oral angle. (ii) Blackish disclourisation (¼" x ¼") under nail lip of left index finger. (iii) Abrasion with scalp 1" x ¼" over back of root of neck. No other marks of violence was present externally over any part of the body. 9. The doctor has mentioned in his evidence that conjunctive of both the eyes of the deceased were yellow. The deceased was having jaundice. No any internal injury or injury to any viscera was found in abdomen. The liver was very much enlarged. No haemorrhage or haematoma in cranial cavity or underneath the scalp. 9. The doctor has mentioned in his evidence that conjunctive of both the eyes of the deceased were yellow. The deceased was having jaundice. No any internal injury or injury to any viscera was found in abdomen. The liver was very much enlarged. No haemorrhage or haematoma in cranial cavity or underneath the scalp. No injury or laceration of membrane of brain or brain substance. The injuries found on external examination were antemortem, simple and caused by hard blunt substance, such as, lathi or iron rod. The death was caused by hepatic jaundice. 10. The Court below has on the basis of the aforesaid evidence convicted the appellants, primarily on the ground that accused persons did not allow the deceased to be carried to the hospital for several days and this act constitute the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The trial Court has mentioned in the impugned judgment had the accused persons allowed the deceased to go to hospital, it might be possible that his life would have been saved. 11. This Court finds that these are mere surmises and own conclusion of the trial Court for coming to the finding of conviction. There is no reliable evidence to convict the appellants. There is cardinal principle of criminal law that no accused can be convicted till prosecution has been able to prove the charge levelled against them beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. 12. In the instant case, even the informant has not appeared to give evidence. One of the witness who has been examined is the brother of the deceased who has stated that he came on hulla in the morning while he was going to plough the field. This witness was also not fully cross-examined and discharged. Besides this witness, no other witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution. The evidence of this witness does not get corroboration from the evidence of Doctor (PW2) who has stated that the deceased died due to hepatic coma. The I.O. of this case and other eye witnesses have not been examined. PW2 (Doctor) has stated that the injuries on the person of the injured was simple in nature caused by hard blunt object. According to doctor, the deceased died due to hepatic jaundice. 13. The I.O. of this case and other eye witnesses have not been examined. PW2 (Doctor) has stated that the injuries on the person of the injured was simple in nature caused by hard blunt object. According to doctor, the deceased died due to hepatic jaundice. 13. In such circumstances, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not in accordance with law after proper appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2009 and order of sentence dated 22.01.2009 passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. They are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bond. 14. This Cr. Appeal is allowed.