Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 156 (PAT)

Keshwar Singh v. State of Bihar

2025-02-07

NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY

body2025
Nawneet Kumar Pandey, J.—I have already heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned amicus curiae for the appellants as well as the learned APP for the State. 2. The appellants of both the appeals have preferred the appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC against the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 02.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1991/ Trial No. 539 of 2003, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:— Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 102 of 2006 Appellants Convicted under sections Sentence Imprisonment Fine (Rs.) in default of fine 1. Keshwar Singh 2. Suraj Singh 3. Ramashray Singh 3. Ramashray Singh 147, 323, 325, 307       and 149 IPC 148 IPC R.I. for one year (u/s 147 IPC) R.I. for six months (u/s 323 IPC) R.I. for two and half years (under Section 325 IPC) R.I. for seven years (u/s 307 IPC) R.I. for one year 1000/- R.I. for             three months Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 132 of 2006 Ram Bilash Singh 147, 323, 325, 307       and 149 IPC R.I. for one year (u/s 147 IPC) R.I. for six months (u/s 323 IPC) R.I.for two and half years (u/s 325 IPC) R.I. for two and half years for five (u/s 307 IPC) 2000/- R.I. months 3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of fardbayan given by the informant, Ramanand Singh, stating therein that at about 12.00 noon, when he went to his field, he saw seven accused persons, namely, Bilas Yadav, the appellant with farsa, Bhagelu Yadav (since deceased with lathi), Soharai Yadav (since deceased with farsa), Ramashray Yadav, the appellant, Suraj Yadav, the appellant, Binod Yadav and Keshwar Yadav, the appellant with lathi. The accused persons were making ridges in the field of the informant. When the informant prohibited, all the accused persons started assaulting the informant (P.W.4) and also his wife (P.W.1) with lathi and farsa. Soharai Yadav assaulted with farsa on the head of the informant and other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. The wife of the informant suffered injuries in her hands, waist etc. The informant and his wife raised hue and cry, whereupon Pariksha Yadav (P.W.5), Permeshwar Singh (not examined) came there and they saw the occurrence. The accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. The wife of the informant suffered injuries in her hands, waist etc. The informant and his wife raised hue and cry, whereupon Pariksha Yadav (P.W.5), Permeshwar Singh (not examined) came there and they saw the occurrence. The accused persons fled away from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant and his wife were brought to the hospital. 4. After lodging of the FIR, the investigation was carried out, and after conclusion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted. The cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions. During trial, three accused persons, namely, Bhagelu Yadav, Sohrai Yadav and Binod Yadav died and proceeding was dropped against them. The charges were framed against the appellants on 04.07.2002 under Sections 307/149 and 325/149 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In order to prove its case, altogether 10 prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the injured witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.1. 6. P.W.1 is Savitri Devi, the wife of the informant. P.W.2 is Karmshila Devi, the daughter of the informant. P.W.3 Maratha Yadav is the brother of the informant. P.W 4 is the informant himself. P.W.5 Parikhsha Yadav is another brother of the informant. P.W.6 is Dr. Pramod Kumar, who medically examined P.W.1 and P.W.4 (the injured). P.W.7, Badri Narayyan Singh is a formal witness, who identified the signature of the then SHO on the fardbayan, which was marked as Ext.5. This witness also identified the signature of then ASI Yogendra Prasad, whose signature was marked as Ext.6. P.W.8 is the deed writer, who drafted the sale deed (Ext.7). P.W.9, Sudama Singh, is the revenue clerk, who identified his signature on the rent receipt Ext.8 and Ext. 8/A. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. 7. The injury report of Savitri Devi has been marked as Ext.3 and the injury report of Ramanand Singh has been marked as Ext.3/1. 8. After conclusion of the prosecution evidences, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC for enabling them to explain the incriminating circumstances emerged against them during trial. They answered near about all the questions in negative. They pleaded their complete innocence. 9. The defence has also examined two witnesses in order to discredit the prosecution case. 10. D.W.1 is Kamta Prasad Singh. This witness is the executant of the sale deed of the disputed land in favour of the accused persons. They answered near about all the questions in negative. They pleaded their complete innocence. 9. The defence has also examined two witnesses in order to discredit the prosecution case. 10. D.W.1 is Kamta Prasad Singh. This witness is the executant of the sale deed of the disputed land in favour of the accused persons. The sale deed has been marked as Ext.A at the instance of this witness. So far as the occurrence is concerned, this witness did not disclose anything about the occurrence. D.W.2, Meghnath SinghYadav, is also the executant of the sale deed in favour of the accused persons. 11. The learned amicus curiae has submitted that a number of contradictions are there in the depositions of the witnesses, which make the occurrence as incredible/ untrustworthy. The learned amicus curiae by drawing my attention towards the fardbayan given by the informant, has submitted that the informant, who is also an injured witness, has stated that Soharai Yadav assaulted him with farsa on his head. He did not make specific allegation against any of the accused persons, except Soharai Yadav in his fardbayan. So far as other accused persons are concerned, the informant has levelled general and omnibus allegation that they assaulted the informant and his wife with lathi and farsa on their heads. But in his deposition, during trial, he improved his earlier version and deposed that the appellant Ramashray has also assaulted him with farsa twice on his head. The learned counsel has also submitted that Savitri Devi, P.W.1, who is injured witness, has stated that Soharai Yadav and Ramashray Yadav assaulted her husband and other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi. 12. On the other hand, the learned APP for the State has submitted that the appellants badly assaulted the informant and his wife and the injuries suffered by them are corroborated by the medical evidence as well as by the ocular evidence, as such, the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused persons and accordingly, they were held guilty. 13. This Court finds material contradictions in the evidences of the informant (P.W.4) and his wife (P.W.1) and his daughter-in-law (P.W.2). 14. As per the FIR, the informant (P.W.4) made specific allegation of inflicting injury/assault by farsa on coaccused Soharai Yadav (since deceased). P.W.4 has mentioned in his fardbayan that Soharai Yadav assaulted him with farsa on his head. 13. This Court finds material contradictions in the evidences of the informant (P.W.4) and his wife (P.W.1) and his daughter-in-law (P.W.2). 14. As per the FIR, the informant (P.W.4) made specific allegation of inflicting injury/assault by farsa on coaccused Soharai Yadav (since deceased). P.W.4 has mentioned in his fardbayan that Soharai Yadav assaulted him with farsa on his head. So far as other accused persons is concerned, he stated that they assaulted him with lathi. The allegations in the FIR against other co-accused persons are general and omnibus. But in his, deposition, during trial, he improved his earlier version by stating that the appellant Ramashray Yadav had also assaulted on his head with farsa. 15. Karamshila Devi is the informant’s daughter, who has been examined as P.W. 2. She has stated that Soharai Yadav inflicted farsa blow on the head of her father. She did not mention the name of any other accused as the assailants of the informant or informant’s wife (P.W.1). 16. Two simple injuries were found on the person of P.W.1 which are abrasion and bruise and simple in nature. So far as medical evidence of P.W.4 is concerned, three simple injuries and one grievous injury were found on his person. The grievous injury is the fracture of his left elbow. 17. Although the injuries show that P.W.4 has suffered one grievous injury and three simple injuries and his wife has suffered two simple injuries, but there is material contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses which make the prosecution case as doubtful. The benefit of doubt certainly goes to the appellants. 18. Considering the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants, the judgment of conviction dated 31.12.2005 and order of sentence dated 02.01.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Rohtas at Sasaram in Sessions Trial No. 376 of 1991/ Trial No. 539 of 2003 are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 19. The appellants are on bail, hence they are discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 20. This Court appreciates the valuable and able assistance to the Court rendered by Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, the learned amicus curiae and directs the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee, Patna to pay an honorarium of Rs. 20,000/- as a token money to the learned amicus curiae.