Patna High Court
Parmeshwar Singh And Ors. vs State Of Bihar [Alongwith Criminal ... on 12 April, 1999
Equivalent citations: 1999(2)BLJR1162
Author: D.P.S. Choudhary
Bench: D.P.S. Choudhary
JUDGMENT
R.N. Sahay and D.P.S. Choudhary, JJ.
1. In Sessions Case No. 485/85, in the file of VIth Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Munger, 17 persons were placed on trial. Accused Ram Saran Singh was charged under Sections 302/148, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act. The other sixteen accused persons were charged under Section 302/149/147, I.P.C. three accused were further charged under Section 323, I.P.C. and one accused was charged under Section 379, I.P.C. The judgment was delivered on 14.11.1996.
2. The trial Judge acquitted Jai Kishore Singh and Shambhu Singh and the remaining accused were convicted for the charges framed against them. Accused Ram Saran Singh has been sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also sentenced under Sections 148, I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act, but no separate sentence was awarded. The remaining accused were convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and sentenced to life imprisonment, but no separate sentence was awarded under Section 147 or 323, I.P.C. These two appeals have been preferred against the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants.
3. Criminal Appeal No. 561/86 has been preferred by fourteen persons who were convicted under Sections 302/149, I.P.C. and Cr. Appeal No. 588/86 has been preferred by accused Ram Saran Singh, who was convicted under Section 302, I.P.C.
4. The trial of the appellants related to the murder of one Sia Singh of village Baltara, P.S. Gogri in the district of Khagaria. The appellants are also of the same village. Sia Singh died a homicidal death is beyond any controversy. It is established by medical evidence that he had received six circular lacerated wounds of different dimensions. The injuries had been caused by fire-arm pellets. Injury No. 1 was circular lacerated wound 1/6" diameter over the right side of forehead. Injury No. 6 was lacerated wound 1/6" diameter over the right side of forehead 1/2" below injury No. 1. These injuries caused fracture of frontal bone and laceration of brain substance. Two pellets were found embedded in the brain substance The prosecution case has been narrated in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Court below quoted hereunder.
The prosecution case briefly speaking is that on 31.10.84 at about 4 a.m. accused Nago Singh, Suresh Singh and Bagari Singh alias Upendra Singh were grazing their cattle in the Khesari field of the informant Sudhir Singh. When the informant saw it, he and Siya Singh of his village brought the cattle from his field for putting them into a Kanji house and for the time being tied them west of his house and east of bandh. At about 7 or 8 a.m. all the accused persons armed with lathi, Bhala and gun came abusing the informant to his house and Ram Saran was armed with a gun and the rest of the accused were armed with lathi and Bhala. The accused persons untied the cattle and at that time the informant was ploughing his field. The accused persons also started untying the bullocks from the plough. The informant protested. Thereafter the accused Parmeshwar Singh assaulted the informant on his head and Birendra Singh on his left shoulder with lathi which caused bleeding injuries. On hulla Jai Nandan Singh and Siya Singh came to the rescue of the informant but Nago Singh assaulted them with lathi causing bleeding injuries on his head. Thereafter, Ram Saran Singh fired a shot from his gun at Siya Singh as a result of which he fell down injured and died subsequently. Accused Suresh Singh took away a Janta wrist-watch from the possession of the informant. Thereafter, all the accused persons decamped with the two bullocks also of the informant. The occurrence was witnessed by Bahadur Singh, Nago Singh, Natho Singh, Raghaw Singh, Anant Kumar Singh and others.
5. The First Information Report of the occurrence was recorded on 31.10.84 at 13 hours at Sadar Hospital, Khagaria on the fardbeyan of Sudhir Pd. Singh, P.W. 4, who is the principal witness of the case. The Trial Judge has based his verdict entirely on the evidence of this witness. It is significant to note that according to the informant, the occurrence was also witnessed by Ram Bahadur Singh, P.W. 2, Ragho Singh, P.W. 1, Anant Kumar Singh. P.W. 3. Nago Singh and Natho Singh were not called as a witness during the trial. Ragho Singh, Ram Bahadur Singh and Anant Kumar Singh were all declared hostile. The informant, no doubt, by and large supported the version of the F.I.R., but the trial Judge has branded his evidence as half-hearted, because at one place he stated that many persons came but he could not identify all of them. In paragraph 2 of his evidence, he stated that it was Ram Saran Singh who had fired his gun at Siya Singh. The learned Trial Judge has not accepted this part of his evidence that this witness had seen Ram Saran Singh firing at Siya Singh. He was observed as follows:
It may not be cut of place to point out here that this assertion of this witness P.W. 4 that he saw Ram Saran Singh firing from his gun cannot be believed simply because, according to his own statement, he was facing south and the gun firing sound came from north at the time when he himself was being assaulted with lathi. Under the situation, he can hardly be believed to have actually seen Ram Saran Singh Singh firing the gun.
Surprisingly, even holding so, the learned Trial Judge held that Ram Saran Singh was responsible for the death of Siya Singh. In paragraph 13 of the judgment, he has given reasons for holding so. He has held as follows:
Now, the question is by whose gun shot, Siya Singh was killed. There can be no doubt that no third man apart from Ram Saran Singh as per prosecution version or Ram Bahadur Singh as per defence version was armed with a gun. It is admitted that. Siya Singh was killed as a result of Gun shot. This fact is apparent from the P.M. report, Inquest report and also the Medical evidence of the Doctor P.W. 8. The Doctor P.W. 8 has stated about the antemortem injuries on the dead body of Siya Singh that they were caused by fire-arm pelletes and were possible by one shot. He also found two pellates embedded in the brain substance. Now if in face of these situation and evidence on record no gun shot by Ram Bahadur Singh hit Siya Singh, it is only Ram Saran Singh's fire shot which caused injuries to Siya Singh and which proved fatal to him. Therefore, it cannot be argued or said that Siya Singh died of gun shot fired by Ram Bahadur Singh. There can be no doubt that Ram Saran Singh fired at Siya Singh as a result of which he sustained injuries and died later on.
6. This is not all. A counter-case in respect of the same occurrence was lodged on the same day which is Ext. B. A totally different version of the occurrence has been given in the counter-case. It was alleged that Ram Bahadur Singh, P.W. 2, who has been declared hostile has fired on the accused persons causing injuries to two of them, Dr. Jagarnath Prasad Singh, who was the Medical Officer of the State Dispensary, Gogri was examined as a defence witness, who deposed that on 31.10.84, he had examined Jai Kishore Singh, Nageshwar Singh, Suresh Singh, Basudeo Singh and Lalpurn Singh. All these persons had injuries on their persons. Nageshwar Singh had three pellets injuries. Other accused persons had simple injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. Opinion regarding the injuries on some of the accused persons was reserved.
7. The prosecution has not been able to explain the injuries on the five persons of the accused party. The evidence of the sole eye-witness is not up to the mark and no implicit reliance can be placed on such a witness in absence of any corroboration. The Trial Judge had partly disbelieved the evidence of this witness. The injuries found on the accused persons have not been explained. We are, therefore, of the opinion to hold that the very genesis of the occurrence is doubtful. There is every possibility that the occurrence had not taken place as asserted by the sole eye-witness.
8. In view of the above discussions, the conviction of the appellants is not warranted and it is a fit case where the appellants should have been given benefit of doubt. We, therefore, set aside the conviction of the appellants and give them benefit of doubt.
9. In the result, both these appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is set aside. The appellants who are on bail are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.