Patna High Court
Palan Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 19 October, 2023
Author: Chandra Shekhar Jha
Bench: Chandra Shekhar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.223 of 1994
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-1992 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
1. Palan Jha, son of Late Krit Narayan Jha
2. Durganand Jha, son of Late Bilat Jha
3. Sita Ram Jha, son of Sri Tirpit Narayan Jha
All the appellants are residents of village - Antaur, P.S. - Bahera, Distt.-
Darbhanga.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 286 of 1994
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-218 Year-1992 Thana- BAHERA District- Darbhanga
======================================================
Arun Kumar Jha @ Arun Jha, S/o Late Krit Narayan Jha, R/o Village- Antaur,
P.S.- Bahera, Distt- Darbhanga.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 223 of 1994 and CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.
286 of 1994)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sumeet Kumar Singh, Advocate
Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Kumar Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
For the Informant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate
Mr. Imteyaz Ahmad, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA)
Date : 19-10-2023
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023
2/80
The present appeals have been filed by the appellants-
convicts under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code')
challenging the impugned judgment of conviction dated
23.04.1994and order of sentence dated 03.05.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.84 of 1993 arising out of Bahera P.S. Case No. 218 of 1992, whereby the concerned Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant, namely, Aurn Kumar Jha to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.'). The concerned Trial Court has also convicted and sentenced the appellants, namely, Palan Jha, Durganand Jha and Sitaram Jha to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/149 of the IPC. All the appellants have further been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months each for the offence under Section 324/149 of IPC and appellant Durganand Jha has further been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 379 of the IPC. All the sentences of the appellants have been directed to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution, which is based on the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 3/80 fardbeyan of the informant, Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) is as under:-
"On 08.09.1992 at about 12:15 PM, the informant, namely, Anil Kumar Jha along with the deceased was going to Darbhanga with a sum of Rs.7,500/-, which was kept in his bag for purchasing spare parts of tractor as well as for treatment of deceased Anant Narain Jha and when they reached in front of the house of the accused Tripit Narayan Jha, who belonged to village-Antaur under P.S.-Bahera in the district of Darbhanga, all the five accused persons were sitting there, on seeing the informant and deceased, accused Tripit Narain Jha ordered to kill them and thereupon, the appellants, Arun Kumar Jha, Palan Jha and Sitaram Jha armed with farsa, appellant Durganand Jha armed with lathi and accused Tripit Narain Jha surrounded them and thereafter the appellant Arun Kumar Jha gave a farsa blow on the head of the deceased Anant Narain Jha as a result of which, he sustained head injury and fell down and when informant Anil Kumar Jha went to save him, the appellant Sitaram Jha wielded a farsa blow on his neck but, the informant save himself and it was hit to his leg due to which he received cut injury. In the meantime, his nephew, namely, Manoj Kumar Jha came for their rescue, who was also assault by appellant Palan Jha by farsa due to which he received cut injury in both wrist. It has further been alleged that accused Tripit Narain Jha snatched the bag from him containing Rs.7,500/- and appellant Durganand Jha assaulted all of them by lathi and also took away wrist watch from Anant Narain Jha. In the meantime, prosecution witnesses arrived there and chased the accused to save them. The motive for the occurrence is said to be a dispute due to exchange of lands between the parties."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 4/80
3. After the occurrence, the informant/PW-7 and injured/deceased Anant Narain Jha were taken to clinic of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-2), at Benipur, who referred injured Anant Narain Jha to Darbhanga Medical College & Hospital, Laheriasarai. The injured Anant Narain Jha was taken to DMCH, Laheriasarai in unconscious state and was admitted there. On the same day, he was referred to PMCH, Patna where the doctor declared him dead.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan given by the first informant (PW-7), Bahera P.S. Case No.218 of 1992 dated 08.09.1992 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Later on, after the death of the deceased Anant Narain Jha, Section 302 of the IPC was also added in the First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R..'). The Investigating Officer thereafter carried out the investigation and during the course of investigation, recorded the statement of the witnesses and also collected the documentary evidence, and after completing investigation, filed the charge-sheet against all the appellants before the concerned learned Magistrate Court.
5. After perusal of material available on record, concerned learned jurisdictional Magistrate after compliance of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 5/80 Section 207 of the Code, committed the case to the Court of Session.
6. Learned trial court after perusal of records, explained charges to appellants-accused, which they denied and claimed for trial, whereafter trial of this case commenced before learned trial court.
7. To substantiate its case, the prosecution before learned Trial Court had examined fifteen witnesses as PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha, who is son of deceased Anant Narain Jha, PW-2 Dr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary, PW-3 Balendra Jha, PW-4 Ram Babu Jha, PW-5 Shiban Paswan, PW-6 Dr. Prem Chandra Jha, PW-7 Anil Kumar Jha, PW-8 Dr. Umesh Chandra Isser, PW-9 Sitapati Barhi, PW-10 Ram Udar Kuwar, PW-11 Bisheshwar Jha, who is Investigating Officer of the case, PW- 12 Raj Nath Singh, PW-13 Phani Kant Chaudhary, PW-14 Dr. Akhauri Rabindra Kishore and PW-15 Ganga Prasad Jha.
8. The prosecution further relied upon following exhibits/documents before the learned trial court as to substantiate its case:-
Sl. No. Exhibits List of exhibits/documets
1. 1 Prescription of Dr. R. K.
Chaudhary, Benipur with
respect to Anant Narain Jha.
2. 2 & 2/1 Signature of Manoj Kumar Jha
and Fanikant Jha, on the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 6/80 carbon copy of Inquest report.
3. 2/2 Signature of witness Anil Kumar Jha on the fardbeyan.
4. 2/3 Signature of Fani Kant Chaudhary on the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Jha dated 9.9.92.
5. 3 Injury certificate of Anil Kumar Jha
6. 3/1 Injury certificate of Manoj Kumar Jha
7. 3/2 Endorsement of Injuries at page 125 of the Injury Register of PMCH regarding injuries of Manoj Kumar Jha.
8. 3/3 Endorsement of Injuries at page 124 continued to page 125 of the Injury Register of P.M.C.H. regarding the injuries of Manoj Kumar Jha.
9. 3/4 Endorsement of Injuries at page 1078 in Injury Register of D.M.C.H. regarding injury of Anant Narain Jha.
10. 3/5 Endorsement of Injury at page 5 of the Injury Register.
11. 3/6 & 3/7 Endorsement on the fardbeyan.
12. 4 Prescription of Anant Narain Jha granted by Dr. R.N. Jha.
13. 5 Bed Head Ticket of D.M.C.H. regarding Anant Narain Jha.
14. 5/1 Endorsement with signature of Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha on the Bed Head Ticket.
15. 6 Carbon copy of O.D. Slip.
16. 6/1 Original O.D. Slip.
17. 7 Entry No.204 of the O.D. Slip.
18. 8 Fardbeyan.
19. 9 Formal F.I.R.
20. 10 Requisition for Injury Report.
21. 11 Sketch map of the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 7/80 occurrence.
22. 12 Inquest Report.
23. 13 Postmortem report.
24. 14 Letter of Dr. Ram Krishna Prasad Singh, I/c of the Department of F.M.& T. Patna.
25. X Fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Jha dated 26.04.1993 recorded at P.M.C.H.
26. X/1 Slip to carry the dead body after postmortem.
27. A Signature of Anil Kumar Jha on protest petition.
28. A/1 Signature of Diwakar Jha, Advocate on the protest petition.
29. A/2 Protest petition.
30. B Wakalatnama.
31. C Station Diary Entry No.213 of 8.9.92.
32. C/1 Station Diary Entry No.222 of 9.9.92.
33. C/2 Station Diary Entry No.394 of 16.9.92.
34. C/3 Station Diary Entry No.398.
35. D Survey map of village Antor (Bahera P.S.)
9. The statement of the appellants-accused were recorded under Section 313 of the Code after stating them incriminating evidences/circumstances, which they denied and shows their complete innocence.
10. Accused-appellants in favour of defence examined one witness, namely, Sita Ram Jha as DW-1. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 8/80
11. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court passed the impugned judgment of conviction as observed hereinabove. Against the impugned judgment and order, the appellants have preferred these appeals, which were admitted and now same is taken for final hearing.
12. Hence, this appeal.
13. It is submitted by learned counsel arguing on behalf of the appellants-accused that with the evidences available on record, it cannot be said that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. While submitting so, it has been pointed out that PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha and PW-7 Anil Kumar Jha, who were examined as injured eye- witness, stated certain facts which appears as a material contradiction regarding manner of occurrence, nature of injuries, etc. It is submitted that even the trial court has not accepted PW- 1 Manoj Kumar Jha as a reliable injured eye witness though, learned trial court has accepted PW-7 as injured eye-witness but, same is also appearing non-convincing in view of his contradictory deposition. It is submitted that rest of the eye- witnesses are either projected eye-witnesses or chance witnesses of the occurrence being relatives or out of acquaintance having close proximity with informant and his family, who appears to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 9/80 arrive on place of occurrence after the actual occurrence, where informant-deceased namely, Anant Kumar Jha alleged to receive fatal farsa blow on his head. It is also submitted that PW-7 was examined by PW-2, namely, Dr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary at his private clinic, where injury report also appears to be manipulated. Learned counsel for the appellants also pointed out that sanha (information) was recorded by the police on the basis of O.D. slip, which is Exhibit-6 sent by PW-2 to the police station but, same O.D. slip is nowhere mentioned the name of deceased Anant Kumar Jha, the register was also not produced before the police. It is also pointed out that the injury report of PW-7 is also undated.
13.1. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused further submitted that the motive of occurrence is also not established in this case and furthermore, Investigating Officer has failed to collect and send the blood-stained earth/soil and bricks for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The Investigating Officer also failed to collect any weapons like, lathi and farsa from the place of occurrence. There are certain facts, which were stated by prosecution witnesses before learned trial court first time by deviating or improving over their earlier version as available through fardbeyan or statement as Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 10/80 recorded under Section 161 of the Code and, as such, the deposition of such witnesses before the learned trial court can be weighed with a doubt by importing contradictions of Investigating Officers, where same appears found hit by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. While travelling over the argument, learned counsel for the appellants-accused submitted that if material contradictions and compelling reasons exist, even the depositions of injured eye-witness can also be discarded and in support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2023 SC 1736. Learned counsel for the appellants-accused also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the matter of Lakshmi Singh and Ors. vs. State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394, where it has been held that omission as to send the blood-stained earth for forensic examination by prosecution and also the non-recovery of murder weapon are fatal for the case of the prosecution.
13.2. Learned counsel further submitted that if the version of FIR as authored by PW-7 be taken into consideration then, certainly, the injury which was to be found by taking nature of weapon which alleged to be caused injury i.e. farsa, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 11/80 which is a sharp-edged cut weapon, be not lacerated. It is pointed out that all the prosecution witnesses improved their version only after going through the postmortem report of the deceased and, thereafter stated before the learned trial court that the deceased received lacerated wound as he received injuries by back of farsa, which is a blunt part. It is also pointed out by learned counsel that the Investigating Officer of this case recorded the fardbeyan of PW-7 at about 8:00 PM on the date of occurrence in the clinic of PW-2 Dr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary but, same was communicated to the concerned Magistrate only on 10th. The Investigating Officer of this case has not even visited the place of occurrence on same day, rather he visited on 09.09.1992 and, therefore, any tampered soil and grass as claimed to be found on place of occurrence are not safe to be relied upon in support of the occurrence. In support of his submission as far delay of registration of F.I.R. is concerned, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Kailash Singh vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1972 SC 2679. While concluding argument, learned counsel for the appellants-accused submitted that by taking note of oral evidences in totality as deposed by several eye-witnesses during the trial, it appears that the witnesses have completely resiled Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 12/80 from their earlier statement for which, a proper attention was drawn and was contradicted with official witnesses, as doctor and the Investigating Officers and same is not safe to be relied upon in view of Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court as reported in the matter of State of Rajasthan vs. Kartar Singh, reported as (1970) 2 SCC 61.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, learned APP appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State duly assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, while appearing on behalf of the informant submitted that there is no any apparent reason to disbelieve PW-7 as an injured witness. It is submitted that the contradictions which were pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused are minor in nature and, as such, same may not be taken into consideration in view of the report of Hon'ble Supreme Court as relied upon by learned counsel for the appellants itself i.e. Balu Sudam Khalde (supra). It is also pointed out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the informant that the nature of injury qua weapon as alleged to be caused injuries cannot be said a major contradiction on the basis of which the entire prosecution case be disbelieved, otherwise supported by injured witnesses Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 13/80 and several eye-witnesses of the occurrence. It is submitted that the Investigating Officer of this case clearly deposed before the court that he found tampering mark of mud and grass near to the place of occurrence along with drop of red colour blood on the kharanza road and also on grass, which suggest in favour of occurrence. It is also submitted that merely on the ground of relation, the deposition of an eye-witness cannot be discarded until and unless it is not appearing that said related witnesses are interested witness. While concluding argument, learned APP submitted that the motive of the occurrence is clearly established during the trial i.e. previous enmities out of land dispute, which is also appearing from the fardbeyan authored by PW-7, who is an injured eye-witness of the occurrence, whereas it is submitted that it is a case of direct evidence and, therefore, the motive is of least concern.
15. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. We have also examined the entire evidence produced by the prosecution before the Trial Court.
16. It would be apposite to discuss all evidences, which are available on record as to re-appreciate the same, which is necessary for just disposal of present appeal. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 14/80
17. PW-1 is Manoj Kumar Jha, who is son of deceased Anant Narain Jha, deposed in his examination-in-chief that the occurrence took place seven and half months ago on Tuesday at about 12:00 hours, while his father was going with his uncle namely, Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) to Darbhanga for treatment. While he was returning after sending his father and uncle for Darbhanga, heard alarm near the house of accused Tripit Narain Jha. He rushed there immediately and found that his father is lying over there unconscious. He found injury on head of his father from where blood was oozing. His uncle was also lying over there and his right leg was found bleeding due to cut injury, when he was in process to lift his father, appellant- accused, namely, Palan Jha assaulted on his neck with farsa having intention to cause his death, which was stopped by him by hand causing cut injury on his hand, thereafter, he was assaulted by the appellant-accused, Durga Nand Jha. The appellant Tripit Narain Jha also gave order to kill him whereafter, appellant Palan Jha again gave farsa blow upon him which hit to his shoulder. The said witness further deposed that the appellants Arun Kumar Jha, Palan Jha were equipped by farsa whereas appellant Durganand Jha was equipped with lathi. Accused Tripit Narain Jha snatched black colour bag from Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 15/80 the hand of his uncle. When he raised alarm, thereafter, Balendra Jha (PW-3), Ram Babu Jha (PW-4), Sitapati Barhi (PW-9), Shiban Paswan (PW-5) and others arrived at the place of occurrence, whereafter, accused-appellants fled away. Thereafter, he brought his father and uncle to Benipur for their treatment where private doctor advised him to shift his father for DMCH, whereas his uncle received his treatment there only. On said advice of doctor at Benipur, he rushed immediately to DMCH at Darbhanga. He identified the letter of reference, which was issued to him by Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-2) at Benipur referring his father to DMCH, which on his identification was exhibited before the learned Trial Court as Exhibit-1. It was also deposed that primary treatment of his father was done at DMCH, Laheriasarai and on same day, through ambulance, he was referred to Patna for better treatment, where his father was declared brought dead. He received his treatment at PMCH, Patna. No police officer was turned up, as it was night and on the next day, at about 11:00 AM, police officer came there and recorded his statement, which he identified before the court and was taken on record with mark- 'X'. The said witness further deposed that after recording his statement, inquest report of his deceased father Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 16/80 was prepared by Police Inspector, where he signed as a witness. He also identified the signature of one Phani Kant Chaudhary, who is his maternal uncle, which on his identification exhibited before the court as Exhibit-2 and 2/1 respectively. After preparing inquest, the dead body of his father was sent for postmortem by police officer. He stated that occurrence took place out of land dispute regarding a land having an area of 16 dhur, which was raised one and a half month prior to this occurrence and till occurrence, it was continued. He identified all accused persons before the learned trial court and stated that they all are his co-villagers.
17.1. On cross-examination, it was deposed by him that he reached Benipur between 3-3:15 PM, where he did not ask anyone to report this occurrence to the police, as he was busy with treatment of his father. It was stated by him that he first time made his statement before the police regarding the occurrence at Patna. It was deposed by him that at first instance, he saw his father lying on the road, which goes towards Anatur chowk from his house. He failed to disclose as to see any other injuries upon his deceased father but, deposed regarding one bleeding injury on his head. When he reached at spot, he found blood oozing from injury as received by his father. Blood was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 17/80 also spread over ground and on road also. He sent his father to Benipur from place of occurrence itself by carrying him on wooden cot and he went to his home as to arrange money and, subsequently, reached Benipur after 45 minutes. He remained for 30-35 minutes at the residence of doctor, where his father was taken away. He deposed name of the doctor as Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-2). He did not show his injury to the said doctor. He did not even show his injury to the doctor of DMCH, Laheriasarai. He came to Darbhanga from Benipur by hired jeep and reached there between 5-6 PM along with Pramod Kumar Jha, Phani Kant Chaudhary and Ram Sharan Jha. It was stated by him that he received injury on the same place where his father was lying on the ground. It was further stated by him that he was assaulted by two persons with farsa, which was having depressed middle portion with raised ends fitted with wooden stick (danda) of 2 ½ -3 human hands. He received only one cut injury, which was bleeding and was not fell down on ground during occurrence. He deposed to show his injury at Patna to Dr. P.C. Jha, who was examined as PW-6. He was never admitted to hospital and received treatment at emergency ward of PMCH, Patna. It was deposed that the prescription regarding his injury received at Patna was handed over to Sub Inspector of Police Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 18/80 but, it was not taken by him. It was deposed by him that during the process of assault by farsa, he raised his both hands and it was not stopped by his palm. He also received lathi injury. His statement was recorded by local police on 12.09.1992. He also stated that when he reached at place of occurrence, Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) was also lying on the road and his injury was also bleeding. He failed to disclose the exact place of injury on leg of Anil Kumar Jha. An attention was drawn regarding his statement where he deposed that he stated before the police at Patna and also at Baheri that accused-appellant Palan Jha assaulted on his neck by farsa with intention to cause his death. He deposed that his father was ill prior to one and half months of this occurrence and he was operated for his throat and ear by Dr. R.N. Jha. It was specifically stated by him that the land dispute with accused person was continued prior to one and half month of the present occurrence. It was also deposed by him that in this connection no complaint was made to the S.D.O. or any other officer. He denied the defence suggestion that no such occurrence was took place and also that place of occurrence was tampered by him, injury report was obtained and there was no blood at place of occurrence.
18. PW-2 Dr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary has stated in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 19/80 his examination-in-chief that in September, 1992, he was posted as Medical Officer, State Dispensary, Bahera. He stated that on 08.09.1992 at 3.45 PM, he examined the injured Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and found the following injuries on his person:-
"1. Blunt cut injury 2" x 1/4" x skin deep with more depth in the centre and bleeing inside over anterior aspect of right first metacarpal region up to the web between 1st and 2nd toe."
2. Tenderness over face, back and left shoulder. No specific injury."
18.1. He opined that Injury No.1 was caused by blunt cutting instrument and was simple in nature and Injury No. 2 was caused due to hard and blunt substance and was also simple in nature. He further opined that the age of injury was within six hours. He further opined that the injury no.2 might be caused by back portion of pharsa. It might not be caused by lathi, but it may be caused by fists or by fall on hard surface. He further stated that injury report is his pen and bears his signature, which was marked as Exhibit-3. He further stated in his examination-in-chief that on the same day, he examined Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and referred him for D.M.C.H., Laherisarai, without noting his injuries. He further stated that at the time of examination, the patient was unconcious and his right pupil was dilated. He further stated that the letter of reference is in my pen and bears his signature, which is already Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 20/80 exhibited as Exhibit-1. He further stated that I had examined both the patients at Benipur.
18.2. During cross-examination, the said witness stated that on that day he examined both patient at his residence. HIs quarter at Benipur lies at a distance of 3 km from Bahera State Dispensary. He further deposed that he had not examined the patient in his private capacity. He further stated that he had not mentioned about these patients in any Out Door Register of the Dispensary. He further stated that he maintains the register of the patients examined by him. He had not maintained details in his register about the patient to whom he had referred to D.M.C.H., Laheriasarai. He further stated that it is difficult for him to say that on that day he had examined only these two patients. He further stated that he had examined these two patients. He stated that he did not remember that at what time on that day, Sub Inspector of Police of Bahera Police Station had come to his clinic. He had not shown that register on which he had noted the reference of the aforesaid first injured to the Sub Inspector of Police. He further stated that he had not produced that register before any Police Officer. During cross- examination, to the court question, said witness deposed that he does not remember that on said date whether he had given any Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 21/80 certificate as Exhibit-3 to the Sub Inspector of Police. The injury report does not bear date. He further deposed that he had granted the certificate and given it to Sub Inspector of Police on 18.09.1992. He has further stated that the above deposition which he had given is based on the injury report (Exhibit-3) and he had not stated anything from his memory. He further stated that he got printed letter pad in his name. He further deposed that the reference letter through which he had referred Anant Narain Jha is on his printed letter pad whereas injury report granted to first injured is not on printed pad and it was given on the back of the police requisition. He further stated that he had written the injury report Exhibit-3 after copying it from some other papers. He further deposed that injury no.1 on the person of Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) is not possible from a dash (thes) of a peg fixed in the ground during the course of walking, but, if an object having a sharp edged, falls from above, then such injury might be possible. He had denied the defence suggestion that it is not a fact that Anil Kumar Jha had no injury and he had issued him false injury report. He further denied the suggestion that Anil Kumar Jha was not admitted in Bahera State Dispensary for this case. He further stated that he had not mentioned the time of examination of Anant Narain Jha Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 22/80 in his reference letter to D.M.C.H. and he had not given any first-aid. He further stated that he had given Efcorlin-one vial I.V., which is a life saving drug. He deposed that he did nothing for checking the bleeding as it was bandaged and did not open the bandage. He further deposed that he had not taken the signature of the patients on the aforesaid injury report or reference letter. On re-examination, he stated that he had brought injury register of Bahera State Dispensary from which he had copied (Exhibit-3). He further deposed that when he examined Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) he had noted his injuries on his register at page-5 which is in his pen and bears his signature and on his identification, same was marked as Exhibit-4/5. He further stated that he had issued carbon copy of OD slip to the police. The carbon copy was prepared by him along with the original in the same process, which is in his pen and bears his signature and marked as Exhibit-6. On further cross- examination, he had stated that he had not produced the register before the police because this is his personal register. He further deposed that the certificate on the first page of the register was given by him on 2.1.1992. At this stage, a question was asked by court as:-
Q. Whether there is any need to give certificate regarding the pages in a personal register ? Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 23/80 Ans. I had given this certificate for my own satisfaction.
He further deposed that he was posted in Bahera State Dispensary since December 1990 and there are three other doctors in that hospital. The first entry in this register is of 22.05.1992. In the digit 2 of the date, 22.5.92 at the top of page 1, of 2.6.92 on the reverse side of page 1, at the bottom and of 20.7.92 at the bottom on the reverse side of page 3, there was overwriting (by the court). He further deposed that there were only 5 entries of 1992 commencing from 22.5.1992 to 8.9.1992, the entries of 1993 started. He stated that it is not a fact that all the 5 entries of 1992 appeared to have been written in the same sitting by the same pen. He further deposed that in 1993, the first entry was of 1st March 1993. Next two entries were of 30th March 1993 and thereafter five entries were of 17.4.1993 and the last entry in this register was of 28.5.1993. At this stage, another question was asked by court to him as:-
Q. Is it not a fact that ink used in writing entries in 1993 are lighter than the ink used in writing entries in 1992? Ans. I can not perceive it.
He further stated that it is not a fact that the register was new and had been freshly prepared for this case. He further deposed that it is not a fact that all the pages of this register were straight and there were no twist on the edges. He further Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 24/80 stated that it is not a fact that this register had been prepared intentionally for helping the prosecution. He further deposed that he does not know whether other doctors posted in Bahera State Dispensary also maintained personal register like this. He stated that he had not mentioned the name of deceased Anant Narain Jha in O.D. slip which was exhibited as Exhibit-6. He further deposed that except two injured persons, one, which was referred by him to D.M.C.H. and the other about whom he had mentioned in the register that he had not examined any other person.
19. PW-3 is Balendra Jha, who deposed in his examination-in-chief that occurrence took place at about 12:15 AM on 08.09.1992 and the day was Tuesday. At that point of time, he was going for betel shop. He was followed by deceased Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and as they reached near to the house of accused Tripit Narain Jha, he heard alarm as 'Bachao Bachao' and found that accused Tripit Narain Jha was giving order to other accused-appellants to kill, whereafter, appellant Arun Kumar Jha assaulted the deceased Anant Narain Jha by using farsa on his head. To save himself from said assault, the deceased received injuries from the back part of the farsa, he became unconscious and fell to the ground. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 25/80 The blood was also started oozing. Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) came forward to save Anant Narain Jha but, he was given a farsa blow by appellant Sitaram Jha, which hit on his leg. Both of them were also assaulted by lathi by appellant-accused Durganand Jha. The appellant Tripit Narain Jha snatched hand bag from Anil Kumar Jha and accused-appellant Durganand Jha snatched wrist watch. When Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) came and was in process to lift his father by that moment, on the order of accused Tripit Narain Jha, he was assaulted by appellant-accused Palan Jha by farsa, which hit on his wrist. It was deposed that appellant Palan Jha gave second blow of farsa on Manoj Kumar Jha, which hit to his shoulder. He was also assaulted by lathi by accused-appellant Durganand Jha. When people gathered there, appellant-accused fled away from the place of occurrence. It was deposed by him that Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha were taken to doctor at Benipur, where he also accompanied. He identified accused-appellant before the trial court.
19.1. On cross-examination, he deposed that he was for two hours at Beniput but, failed to depose anyone out of 5- 10 persons, who accompanied him for Benipur. He came back to his home after two hours. Subsequently, he stated that he Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 26/80 went to Motipur from Benipur and returned back to home on next morning at about 6:00 AM and, thereafter, he met with Police Inspector, who came to his home after two hours of his arrival. He deposed that police Inspector (Daroga) visited place of occurrence at about 9:00 AM. He failed to depose that he has no knowledge as to when the informant Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) returned from Benipur, but he found him at place of occurrence at 9:00 AM. His statement along with the statement of Ram Babu Jha (PW-4) were recorded at place of occurrence at about 9:00 AM. He deposed on his own that his earlier deposition that wrist watch was of Anil Kumar Jha is wrong rather it was of deceased Anant Narain Jha, which was not objected by learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants-accused before the trial court. It was deposed by him that when he reached, he found blood was spread over road. It was spread on different places. It was in maximum radius equivalent to one and half hand except that he did not find blood-stains anywhere. He deposed to saw the farsa, which was used as a weapon during the occurrence, which was depressed in between width raised ends fitted with wooden stick. Anant Narain Jha (deceased) received injury with back portion of the farsa as a result of which, a ruptured injury developed causing Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 27/80 excessive bleeding, which stained his dhoti and kurta, which he was wearing at that time. Mark of injury was only on head of the deceased. It was deposed by him that blunt back portion of farsa was having width equivalent to 4-5 fingers. He was available at the place of occurrence along with 5-6 persons but they were not interfered in occurrence as to save Anant Narain Jha (deceased). Initially, it was deposed by him that when Anant Narain Jha was assaulted, he was at a distance of three lagga (one lagga is equivalent to 12 human hands) towards south but, subsequently, he said that he was as close to 3-4 hand in south direction when deceased was assaulted. It was stated by him that when assault with farsa was made on Anant Narain Jha (deceased), he did not moved his hand towards front and not even tried to run away. The entire occurrence was for 2-3 minutes. An attention was drawn by defence where he deposed that he stated before police when farsa blow was given to Anant Narain Jha (deceased) by accused-appellant Arun Kumar Jha, he moved his head down. While narrating the occurrence, he deposed that injured Anil Kumar Jha received injury from front side of farsa. The farsa was blown from southern direction. No one has assaulted Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) by farsa second time. He deposed that in the meantime, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 28/80
1) came at the place of occurrence started to lift his father and during the course of lifting, he received two farsa blow one by front and another by back side of farsa. It was deposed by him that accusedTripit Narain Jha snatched bag prior to assault of Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). An attention was drawn by defence counsel at this stage, where he denied to made any statement before the police that bag was snatched from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha when all three received injuries i.e. Anant Narain Jha (deceased), Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). He denied the defence suggestion that no such occurrence took place and deposed falsely. He also denied that he was not an eye-witness of the occurrence.
20. PW-4 is Ram Babu Jha. He also stated in his examination-in-chief that date of occurrence was Tuesday and time was between 12-12:15 PM. He arrived at the place of occurrence on alarm and found that Arun Kumar Jha, Sitaram Jha, Palan Jha were equipped with farsa whereas Durganand Jha was equipped with lathi and were surrounded Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha along with Tripit Narain Jha. He deposed that on order of Tripit Narain Jha, Arun Kumar Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha by farsa on his head as a result of which, his head ruptured and bleeding was started. When Anil Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 29/80 Kumar Jha went to save Anant Narain Jha, he was assaulted by Sitaram Jha by farsa on his neck, which hit on his leg, as he turned himself back. Tripit Narain Jha snatched black colour bag from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha and Durganand Jha snatched wrist watch from the hand of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). Appellant-accused Durganand Jha also assaulted Anil Kumar Jha and Anant Narain Jha by lathi. In the meantime, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) came there and the moment he started to lift his father Anant Narain Jha, the appellant-accused Palan Jha assaulted him with farsa. During the process of assault, as he stand up, for said reason, injury was caused on his hand. Another assault was caused by farsa by appellant-accused Palan Jha which hit shoulder of Manoj Kumar Jha. He also accompanied injured Anant Narain Jha (by that time) and injured Anil Kumar Jha while they were carried to Benipur and first of all they went to the house of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, where Dr. R.K. Chaudhary (PW-2) gave him an injection immediately and referred him for DMCH, Laherisarai and, thereafter, he treated Anil Kumar Jha. He identified all five accused persons present before the trial court including the appellants-accused. He deposed that Sitapati Barhi (PW-9) and Siban Paswan (PW-5) are not the labourer of informant but, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 30/80 they were also engaged by others. He denied the defence suggestion that both these witnesses are the exclusive labour of informant. He deposed that at first instance, he saw only 4-5 persons at the place of occurrence. He deposed that when he reached at place of occurrence, he did not find Anant Narain Jha in lying condition and before his arrival Siban Paswan (PW-5) reached at place of occurrence. It was stated by him that in first phase of occurrence, assaults were made and thereafter snatching took place and subsequent thereafter, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) reached there. He deposed that when he saw appellants-accused, he found they were surrounding Anant Narain Jha, Anil Kumar Jha and in that condition, they assaulted both of them. Anant Narain Jha after receiving injury became unconscious and fell down on the ground. It was deposed by him that Manoj Kumar Jha was assaulted by two persons and was also assaulted by lathi while he was standing. He claimed to see lathi assault given to Manoj Kumar Jha. It was deposed by him that when farsa assault was made to Manoj Kumar Jha, it was not stopped by raising his hands. On drawing his statement, it was stated by him that he stated before the Police Inspector that accused Tripit Narain Jha gave order to kill. He denied the defence suggestion that he deposed falsely. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 31/80
21. PW-5 is Siban Paswan, who deposed that occurrence took place between 12-12:15 PM on Tuesday. On the day and time of occurrence, while he was returning after cutting wooden log for fuels (jalawan) and reached near to the house of accused Tripit Narain Jha, heard public alarm (hulla) and found that appellants-accused Arun Kumar Jha, Sitaram Jha, Palan Jha (all equipped with farsa), Durganand Jha equipped with lathi and Tripit Narain Jha having empty hand were surrounding Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7). It was stated by him that on the order of accused Tripit Narain Jha to kill them, Arun Kumar Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha with farsa, which hit his head. The head of Anant Narain Jha ruptured and he fell down. While Anil Kumar Jha was started to lift Anant Narain Jha, accused-appellant, Sitaram Jha assaulted him with farsa, which hit his leg. Durganand Jha also assaulted with lathi to Anant Narain Jha on his head and assaulted Anil Kumar Jha on his face, back, eyes etc. He further deposed that Tripit Narain Jha snatched bag from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha and Durganand Jha snatched wrist watch from the hand of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). No one came to save them. Soon thereafter, Sitapati Barhi, Ram Babu Jha, Ram Udar Kunwar, Balendra Jha etc. witnesses came there resultantly, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 32/80 accused-appellants run away. Later on, Harshit Jha, Lalit Jha, Hari Das, Hari Sahni came there from village and after lifting Anant Narain Jha taken him Benipur on wooden cot. Blood was oozing from his wound. At this point of his examination-in- chief, a court question was asked to him.
Q. Whether any person received injury beside Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha?
Ans. On raising this question, the learned defence counsel has raised objection that by asking such questions it would amount to give a suggestion that whether any person came forward to save Anil Kumar Jha and Anant Narain Jha after his specific deposition that no one came to save them.
This submission was accepted by the learned trial court and thereafter, this witness exempted to reply aforesaid court question. This witness has identified all the appellants-accused present before the court.
21.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him that on the day of occurrence, he was working as a labour for one Jogendra Jha. He is not regular employee of Jogendra Jha and work for him, whenever he engaged. It was also stated by him that before giving his statement to the police, he stated about the occurrence to Ramphal Sahni and Ram Sahni. He stated that he did not make any statement before Sub Inspector (Daroga Ji) that he heard hulla (public alarm) in front of outhouse (darwaja) of accused Tripit Narain Jha. He stated that the chain Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 33/80 of wrist watch was white in colour and out of snatching, no scratch wound appears on wrist. He denied the defence suggestion that his residential plot was given by Baikunth Jha, who is the grand father of Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7). He denied the defence suggestion that no such occurrence took place as he deposed. He also denied the defence suggestion that no blood was spread over the place of occurrence.
22. PW-6 is Dr. Prem Chandra Jha, who was posted as Suregon on Duty in Indira Gandhi Central Casualty of PMCH, Patna in the surgery wing as on that day, at 11:15 PM, he had examined injured Manoj Kumar Jha and found the following injury on his person:-
"A cut with lacerated margin 1 ½" x 1/2" x 1/8" over right forearm 2" over right wrist joint on dorsal aspect."
The doctor has opined that the injury was simple in nature and was caused by lathi or hard blunt substance. The age of the injury was more than six hours. He further opined that the said injury could not be caused by a farsa with blunt edge. He identified the injured Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) before trial court. He had identified the injury report which he had issued on requisition by the police on 05.02.1993. He stated that he put his signature with his own pen and identified his signature on it and on his identification, the trial court has exhibited the same Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 34/80 as Exhibit-3/1. He deposed that when he examined the injured, he noted the injuries in O.P.D. register (Out Door Patient Register) and on the direction of court, he brought the said register in the court. He further deposed that he noted the injury of aforesaid injured at page 125 of the register. It was deposed by him that the portion at page 125 has been written by him under his signature, which was exhibited before the court as Exhibit-3/2. It was deposed by him that the upper portion of page 125 and the bottom portion of page no. 124 with respect to the aforesaid injured have been written by House Surgeon Dr. Arun Kumar Singh and he identified his hand-writing and signature on the register, which was exhibited by Exhibit-3/3. It was deposed by him that the portion written by House Surgeon was seen by him before examining the injured and found that he had originally written that injury was due to fall, but, he struck it and correct it by writing the words 'alleged assault' and put his initial there. He further stated that he did not put date and time below his initial, which he put there. He further stated that he did not exactly remember as to after how many hours of the examination of the patient by Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, he wrote the portion, which was marked as Exhibit-3/2. He further stated that he has not mentioned the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 35/80 time when he wrote that portion. He further stated that the injury was only skin deep and superficial in nature. He denied the defence suggestion that Manoj Kumar Jha had no injury and he had given incorrect report about him.
23. PW-7 Anil Kumar Jha, who is the informant of this case stated in his examination-in-chief that the deceased Anant Narain Jha was his cousin brother, who was murdered on 08.09.2012 in an occurrence, which took place between 12- 12:15 AM, while he along with his deceased cousin brother were going to Darbhanga. He was accompanied with his deceased brother, as he has also to purchase the motor spare parts for the tractor. He identified prescription of Dr. R.N. Jha, which was in his hand-writing and on his identification, it was exhibited as Exhibit-4. It was stated that while they were reached near to the house of accused Tripit Narain Jha, who was sitting in his out-house along with other appellant/accused ordered to kill them and, on his said order, the appellants- accused Arun Kumar Jha, Palan Jha and Sitaram Jha who were equipped with farsa in their hands, appellant-accused Durganand Jha who was equipped with lathi and co-accused Tripit Narain Jha (empty hand) came near to them. Thereafter, the appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha gave a farsa blow on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 36/80 deceased, which hit his right side of the head by its back portion, the deceased on that point of time became unconscious and fell down and as he went to save him, the appellant-accused Sitaram Jha gave a farsa blow on his neck, which in process of saving, hit his right leg. In the meantime, the appellant-accused Durganand Jha also came and assaulted both of them with lathi. It was deposed by him that he had a bag containing Rs. 7,500/-, which was snatched by co-accused Tripit Narain Jha. The appellant-accused Durganand Jha snatched wrist watch form the hand of deceased. Soon thereafter, the son of deceased, namely, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) came over there and while he was started to lift his father, the appellant-accused Palan Jha gave a farsa blow to him, which was stopped by him using his hand resultantly, he received cut injury. The appellant-accused Durganand Jha also assaulted Manoj Kumar Jha with lathi. It was deposed that during the course of occurrence, Balendra Jha, Rambabu Jha, Ram Udar Kunwar, Siwan Paswan, Sitapati Barhi came over there, who are co-villagers. When they were protested the occurrence, appellants-accused run away. After leaving place of occurrence by appellants-accused, he along with his cousin brother Anant Narain Jha were brought to Benipur, where he was treated and Anant Narain Jha was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 37/80 referred to D.M.C.H. His statement was recorded there by Police Inspector (Daroga Ji), which was read over to him and thereafter, he signed his fardbeyan, which he identified before the learned trial court and on his identification, same was exhibited as Exhibit-2/2. It was deposed that his injuries were also seen by Police Inspector. He deposed regarding cause of occurrence, as dispute regarding 16 dhurs of land which exchanged with accused-appellant under oral agreement before 40 years ago, where accused Tripit Narain Jha without returning their share of land asked him to return his exchanged share. This dispute was also the subject of panchayati, which was held before two days of the occurrence. He identified all the appellants-accused before the trial court and stated that he shown the place of occurrence to the Police Inspector on the next date of occurrence.
23.1. During cross-examination, he stated about the disputed land of 16 dhurs with all its description and boundaries but, failed to depose that he has any knowledge as to which appellants-accused said land was given. On attention, he stated before the learned trial court that he made this statement in FIR and in his re-statement that the land of his share was withheld by co-accused Tripit Narain Jha and he was Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 38/80 demanding his own exchanged piece of land. It was stated that panchayati was done and was not documented. It was stated by him that Exhibit-4 i.e. prescription of Dr. R.N. Jha was not shown to Sub Inspector (Daroga Ji). He denied the defence suggestion that he obtained prescription of Dr. R.N. Jha later on. He stated that he gave information through his fardbeyan that accused Tripit Narain Jha was sitting at his out-house (darwaja) along with accused persons and same fact was also stated before the police in his re-examination during the course of investigation. It was stated that all three farsa were of same type where iron part was of about 1-1 ½ bitta. By giving description of said farsa, he stated further that it was depressed in between with raised ends having fitted wooden stick which was of 2-3 hand. It was stated that when Arun Kumar Jha hurled farsa on Anant Narain Jha, at that point of time, his face was towards south and Arun Kumar Jha was at a distance of 3-4 hands. There were no any obstacles between them. It was stated that farsa was hurled by using both hands by taking it first up and thereafter to down. It was stated that farsa blow turned before causing injury on head and as such, injury was caused by blunt and back portion of farsa (fasat) as a result of which, the head of Anant Narain Jha was ruptured and it was not caused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 39/80 cut injury. It was stated that when Anant Narain Jha was assaulted, he was standing near to him at a distance of 1-1 ½ hand and when he came to save him, he was also assaulted by appellant-accused Sitaram Jha. He failed to depose that whether farsa hit straightway to the head of Anant Narain Jha or in any manner. It is stated that when he bent down to lift him farsa was also hurled upon him by appellant-accused Sitaram Jha but, he turned himself to save and as a result, he received injury on his right leg. He also fell to ground and in that condition he was assaulted by lathi. He received three lathi blows. It was stated that the lathi blow was also given on the head of deceased straightway. A question was asked by the court at this stage.
Q. Whether any blood was oozed out of lathi blow from the head injury?
And. The blood was already oozing.
It was also stated by him that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-
1) was also assaulted. He received farsa blow while he was standing. He did not fell to the ground out of farsa blow. He received cut injury out of farsa blow and also 2-3 lathi blow. At this stage, a farsa was produced before the court by defence counsel showing to this witness as to whether that farsa was same or different, where it was stated that the farsa used for assault was of same design but ends of those farsas were more Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 40/80 raised and the back part was also having more width. Those farsas were also of more in length. The farsa produced by defence was exhibited by Exhibit-A/1 before the trial court. It was stated by him that the back part of farsa which was used during the occurrence is of width of four fingers whereas the farsa which produced before the court having width of two fingers only raised portion was also more by one finger. On drawing attention, he stated that he made a statement in his fardbeyan that farsa, which was hurled by Arun Kumar Jha on deceased turned and caused injury on right side of his head by its blunt part. He denied the defence suggestion that he made a statement in his fardbeyan that appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha with intention to cause death of his cousin brother Anant Narain Jha came near to him and waived 'samadhan farsa' on his head. He also stated that he made statement in fardbeyan and re-statement also that farsa hit on right side of the deceased. He denied the defence suggestion to file any protest petition before Inspector of Police, Benipur and denied to engage any advocate naming Divakar Jha but, he identified his signature on an application shown to him, which was exhibited as 'A' having signature of Sri Divakar Jha, advocate also, which was exhibited as Exhibit-A/1. On court's question, he stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 41/80 that he studied upto class-X. He stated to file his vakalatnama on same day, which was mentioned over application, which on his admission, was exhibited as Exhibit-B, where he mentioned that appellant-accused Durganand Jha assaulted by how many lathis to deceased and his son Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). He failed to recall whether he mentioned in said protest that deceased Anant Narain Jha was referred to D.M.C.H. as he received serious injuries without giving any treatment. He denied the suggestion as no such occurrence took place and also nature of injuries, which were disputed by learned defence counsel. He also denied the suggestion that snatching of Rs. 7,500/- and wrist watch were not taken place He denied suggestion that deceased received injury at dalan (outhouse) of one Ram Saran Jha (which was under construction) out of falling of bricks on his head and taking advantage of situation, the present case was lodged against the appellants-accused.
24. PW-8 is Dr. Umesh Chandra Isser, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 8th September, 1992, he was posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Surgery in D.M.C.H., Laheriasarai. On that day at 5:00 PM, he had examined one Anant Narain Jha and found the following injuries on his person:-
"The patient was unconscious with a lacerated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 42/80 wound 2 ½" x 1/2" x Bone deep over right side of scalp. The age of injury was within six hours. Advised X-ray of skull."
The said witness further stated that he has produced the Injury Register of Surgical (Emergency) Ward of D.M.C.H. He further deposed that the said entry was made in his pen and bears his signature and on identification, same was exhibited as Exhibit-3/4. He further deposed that the patient was admitted in D.M.C.H. in the unit of Professor P.S. Sahay. He further stated that the entries and writing below the line of Bed Head Ticket of aforesaid Anant Narain Jha, were made in his pen and bears his signature, which was marked as Exhibit-5. The said witness further stated that the endorsement on the Bed Head Ticket for referring the patient to Neuro Surgery Department of P.M.C.H. Patna is in pen of Dr. Anil Kumar Sinha, which was marked as Exhibit-5/1.
24.1. During cross-examination, the said witness has stated that he was not examined by any Officer in this case. He further stated that he cannot say whether this injury register and Bed Head Ticket were ever produced by any police officer in connection with this case. He further stated that page no. 1078 of the register contains entry in his pen and does not bear the signature or initial of any person except him. He further stated that whenever such patient comes, he first goes to Emergency Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 43/80 Ward, where necessary entries were made in the Admission Register. He further deposed that this patient came in Emergency Ward at 5:00 PM, where he was examined by him, as he was on duty. He further deposed that he is not sure whether the entry in the Admission Register of Emergency Ward relating to the admission of this patient was made by him or by Assistant Casualty Officer on duty. He further deposed that injuries are not noted in the Admission Register. The entries (Exhibit-3/4) relating to Anant Narain Jha are noted on the last page of the injury register. He also deposed that after the aforesaid entry, no other entry was made in this register. The said witness stated that just below the writing 'P.S.K. Sahay Unit' Anant was first written and then it was struck down in the same process and Anant Narain Jha was written over there. The said cutting does not bear his signature. He further deposed that the size of injury was subsequently written by him in the short space available after the word 'lacerated' and before the word 'over'. The said witness further deposed that in the other entries at page nos. 1075, 1076 and 1077 dimension of the injuries of the patient was not mentioned. He volunteers to say that because injuries on page 1075 and 1077 are regarding burn injuries and in such cases of burn injuries dimension of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 44/80 injuries were not noted, only the percentage of burned surface is noted whereas in page no. 1077, the bruise was on the whole lower back and due to that dimension of bruise injury was noted. He further deposed that in the bed head ticket, name of the patient has been written after some correction. He further stated that he cannot say as to whether the X-ray of the patient was done on that day or not. He further deposed that in the endorsement marked as Exhibit-5/1, he has written that on request, referred to Neuro Surgery P.M.C.H. He further said that he cannot say as to who has written on the back side of Bed Head Ticket, which was marked as Exhibit-5. He denied the defence suggestion that the size of injury in entries, which was marked as Exhibit-3/4 has been inserted subsequently after receipt of the postmortem report. He further denied the defence suggestion that the said entry is antedated.
25. PW-9 is Sitapati Barhi, who deposed before the court that the occurrence took place on Tuesday between 12:00
- 12:30 PM. At that time, he was coming from Motipur and as he reached near to the house of Balendra, he saw Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) were going together and as they reached near to outhouse (dalan) of Tripit Narain Jha, they were surrounded from both sides by Tripit Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 45/80 Narain Jha, Arun Kumar Jha, Sita Ram Jha, Palan Jha and Durga Nand Jha. On order of Tripit Narain Jha to kill them, appellant -accused Arun Kumar Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha with farsa, who hit him on his head by its back portion. He fell down and became unconscious. Anil Kumar Jha bent down to lift Anant Narain Jha and at that very moment, appellant- accused Sitaram Jha assaulted him by his farsa on his neck but in course of saving himself, farsa became turned, which resultantly, hit on his leg. Durga Nand Jha assaulted by lathi to Anil Kumar Jha and Anant Narain Jha, Durganand Jha also snatched wrist watch from the hand of Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Tripit Narain Jha snatched a bag from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha. To save them, when Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) came there and bent down to hold his father, Palan Jha waived farsa blow on him, but as Manoj Kumar Jha, became stand, as a result farsa hit on his wrist. When second assault caused by Palan Jha by farsa to Manoj Kumar Jha, same was hit on his shoulder. Durganand Jha also assaulted Anant Kumar Jha by lathi. After assaulting them, accused persons ran away. He identified all the accused appellants present before the court.
25.1. On cross-examination, he stated before the court that he was not engaged by anyone on the date of occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 46/80 rather he was engaged by Sarpanch Shyam Bihari on the date of occurrence, where he was continuously working from last 2- 3 days. He left the place where he was working between 11:00 - 11:30 PM, at first instance, he stated to saw seven persons at the place of occurrence who were fighting, out of them, five were appellants-accused and two were Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7). He saw the actual occurrence of assault. They were surrounding the deceased and injured PW-7 for five minutes and at that point of time, there was no conversation between them, neither there any alarm was raised. It was stated that alarm was raised after starting of actual assault. His statement was recorded by Police Inspector (Daroga Ji) after 10-12 days of the occurrence. An attention was drawn to him that he did not stated before police as when he was coming he saw appellants-accused were assaulting Anant Narain Jha, Anil Kumar Jha and Manoj Kumar Jha by lathi and farsa but, deposed that he stated before Police that while he was coming from Motipur and reached near to the house of Balendra, he saw Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha were going together. He also deposed to state before police that accused Tripit Narain Jha ordered to kill. It was deposed by him that when farsa was hurled by appellant-accused Anil Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 47/80 Kumar Jha by using both hands taking it first upward, before actual assault. It was stated that during the course of occurrence farsa became turned. He also deposed to see the blood at the place of occurrence. It was also deposed by him that while Arun Kumar Jha holding Anant Narain Jha at that time, appellant- accused Sitaram Jha hurled farsa on him. He also hurled farsa by using both hands. Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) received injuries from sharp-edged of the farsa causing cut injury. It was also deposed by him that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) was assaulted twice by farsa (fasat) where one injury was caused by sharp- edged and second injury was caused by its back part. He corrected himself that as he deposed above to hold Anant Narain Jha by Arun Kumar Jha was typed inadvertently out of typing mistake, rather it was Anil Kumar Jha who hold Anant Narain Jha and same be read accordingly. It was stated further that Durganand Jha after assaulting by lathi snatched a bag. He stated that he generally works in two shifts i.e. from 8:00
-12:00 AM and thereafter from 2:00 - 6:00 PM. He denied to depose falsely.
26. PW-10 is Ram Udar Kunwar. He also deposed in his examination-in-chief that occurrence was of Tuesday, which took place between 12:00-12:15 PM. By that time, he was on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 48/80 his shop, which is in his house itself. He deposed that he heard that accused Tripit Narain Jha ordered to kill while Anil Kumar Jha having black bag in his hand were coming from north-south direction along with Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He deposed that when both of them came near to the outhouse (dalan) of Tripit Narain Jha, five persons namely, Arun Kumar Jha, Sitaram Jha all equipped with farsa, accused-appellant Duraganand Jha equipped with lathi and Tripit Narain Jha empty hand surrounded them, where on order of Tripit Narain Jha, Arun Kumar Jha hurled farsa on Anant Narain Jha (deceased) which hit on his right side of his head, resultantly his head was ruptured. Blood was started oozing and Anant Narain Jha fell down. Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) while was lifting Anant Narain Jha (deceased), Accused-appellant Sitaram Jha assaulted him with farsa on his neck, which became turned and hit to his right leg. When both of them were lying on the ground, accused-appellant Durganand Jha assaulted with lathi to both Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha. He also deposed that Tripit Narain Jha snatched a black bag from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha and Durganand Jha snatched a wrist watch from the hand of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). It was also deposed by him that by that time, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 49/80 came from northern direction and made an attempt to save his father and uncle. By that time, appellant-accused Palan Jha assaulted with farsa on his neck but as he bent down and stopped farsa by his hand resultantly he received cut injury on his right wrist. Palan Jha also hurled farsa on him second time, which hit by its back part to Manoj Kumar Jha, thereafter, Durganand Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha (deceased) by lathi after which accused-appellant Durganand Jha gave 2-3 lathi blows on Anant Narain Jha (deceased). It was stated by him that he and Balendra Jha (PW-3) came together at the place of occurrence from his shop. It was also deposed by him that from northern side three persons namely, Rambabu Jha (PW-4), Shiban Paswan (PW-5) and Sitapati Barhi (PW-9) along with other co-villagers came at the place of occurrence. He stated specifically that 40-45 persons were gathered there. Appellants- accused fled away after assaulting and thereafter Anant Narain Jha was brought first on Chowk on wooden cot where one Shyam Jha running a medicine shop put bandage on the head of Anant Narain Jha (the then injured) from where he was taken to doctor at Benipur. Both Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha were taken to doctor. It was also deposed by him that occurrence took place out of land dispute which were Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 50/80 exchanged earlier between them. He identified all the four accused persons before the court and claimed to be identified appellant-accused Durganand Jha also who on that day was represented through his lawyer.
26.1. On cross-examination, a question was put to him by court, which he fairly replied in cross-examination that it was Manoj Kumar Jha who was given 2-3 lathi blow by Durganand Jha. He stated that the disputed land of 16 dhoors is just in eastern side of his courtyard adjacent to which a pond is there for which there is a dispute with Mahendra Sahani. He denied that in the said dispute accused Tripit Narain Jha helped him. It was stated by him that he and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) shown the place of occurrence to the police. He failed to depose, whether any police officer came to village on the date of occurrence as he slept by that time. It was stated by him that the occurrence of physical assault with regard to Anant Kumar Jha and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) were continued for 2-4 minutes and after 1-1½ minute, Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) came over there. It was also stated that occurrence took place for 3-4 minutes. He along with others not made any attempt to save the deceased and others. He saw the mark of injury on the body of all three injured after the occurrence. He saw three Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 51/80 injuries upon Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) where he found one injury on his arm except that, he did not see any ruptured injuries upon body of Manoj Kumar Jha. He also deposed to see one swollen injury on right side of Manoj Kumar Jha. An attention was drawn at this stage to this witness that he stated before police that Palan Jha assaulted on neck of Manoj Kumar Jha by farsa and also stated that Durganand Jha gave 2-3 lathi blows to Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). It was stated by him that he saw two injuries on Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) out of which, from one injury, blood was oozing, whereas another wound was non- bleeding. He failed to depose that whether blood was oozing from cut injury on leg of Anil Kumar Jha. He never discussed about injuries with injured Anil Kumar Jha. He stated to see only one injury on the head of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He denied the defence suggestion that no such occurrence was taken place. He also denied the suggestion that there was no physical injury upon Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7). He denied the suggestion that he deposed falsely.
27. PW-11 is Bisheshwar Jha, who is Investigating Officer of this case and was posted as A.S.I. in Bahera Police Station. He received information on 08.09.1992 from Dr. R.K. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 52/80 Chaudhary, who was posted as doctor in Bahera Hospital, from whom he received one O.D. Slip, where he was directed to visit the clinic of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary of Bahera Hospital. Said O.D. slip was numbered as 204 dated 08.09.1992 where time was mentioned as 5:15 PM. It is entered in station diary by Police Constable Yugal Prasad having no.244, which on his identification exhibited before the learned Trial Court as Exhibit No.-7. He also identified the O.D. slip of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary, which was identified as Exhibit No.-6/1. He reached to the clinic of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary at 6:15 and made an attempt to record the statement of Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) but, he was found injured and was not in a position to give his statement, therefore, he waited for sometime and, thereafter, recorded his statement at 8:00 PM. After recording of statement of Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7), it was read over to him, which as found correct signed before him. The said written information/fardbeyan was recorded in presence of two witnesses namely, Chandra Mohan Chaudhary and Yashoda Nand Jha. These two witnesses put their signature before him. He identified written information/fardbeyan before learned trial court, which was exhibited as Exhibit No.-8. After recording fardbeyan, he forwarded the same to the SHO, Bahera Police Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 53/80 Station but, could not sent it, as at that time, no Choukidar was available and as fardbeyan disclosed cognizable offence, therefore, he assumed charge himself. Endorsement of said effect was made by him, which was exhibited before trial court as Exhibit Nos.-3/6 and 3/7. On the basis of said written information/fardbeyan, a formal FIR was drawn, which was bearing signature of SHO namely, Md. Yasin, which on his identification was exhibited as Exhibit No.9. He recorded the re- statement of informant and found injury upon him. Requisition regarding said injury was sent by him, which was exhibited as Exhibit No.-10. He visited the place of occurrence on same date at 10:45 PM. The witnesses were searched but, he did not find anyone, being odd night hour. On 09.09.1992 at 5:30 he visited the clinic of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary again and, thereafter, he visited the place of occurrence with informant (PW-7). He reached to the place of occurrence at 6:30 AM. At that time, the informant (PW-7) and Ramawtar Kunwar were present there. He described place of occurrence as bricks-made road in front of house of accused Tripit Narain Jha which was going towards south. The road which was found as place of occurrence having width of seven hand and it was in regular use of public. He found mud and grass besides place of occurrence and found Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 54/80 grass and mud were tampered. He also found small droplet of red colour on nearby bricks, which appears like blood. Small droplets of blood were also available on grass near to the place of occurrence. He found place of occurrence in very disturbed/tampered conditions but, did not find any clotting of blood there. He found blood-stained upto Antaur Chowk starting from place of occurrence. It was deposed by him that as place of occurrence was disturbed/tampered, therefore, blood sample could not be collected. He stated to draw sketch of place of occurrence, which was exhibited before learned trial court and exhibited as Exhibit No.-11. He recorded the statement of witnesses, namely, Ram Udar Kunwar (PW-10), Balendra Jha (PW-3) and Ram Babu Jha (PW-4). He searched appellants- accused but, did not find them. He also could not searched weapons of crime in question. He came back to thana from village-Antaur at 10:30 AM. He visited on same day to village- Antaur at 8:30 PM and searched appellants-accused in village and also in nearby village but, could not find them as they were absconded. On same very day, i.e. on 12.09.1992 during course of investigation at 10:00 AM he came to know that Anant Narain Jha died at PMCH and his dead body arrived. He recorded statement of son of deceased namely, Manoj Kumar Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 55/80 Jha (PW-1) and made an application before the court of learned SDJM, Benipur to add Section-302 of the IPC in FIR. He also received injury report of injured Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and inquest report of deceased Anant Narain Jha. He also recorded the statement of Sitaparti Barhi (PW-9) and Siban Paswan (PW-
5) on 18.09.1992. He handed over the charge of further investigation to the SHO as per his direction. It was deposed by him that SHO has not made any investigation in this case and he only submitted charge-sheet.
27.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him that he investigated this case from 08.09.1992 to 18.09.1992 and by that date he did not received postmortem report of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He opened case diary at the clinic of Dr. R.K. Chaudhary on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.09.1992 at about 5:15 PM. It was stated that he wrote para-1 and 2 of case diary at station itself and thereafter he proceeded towards clinic at about 5:25 PM, which was in his residence. He reached at clinic of doctor at 6:15 PM and met with doctor but he did not ask for any injury report. It was not even given by doctor. When he went to clinic, he found Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) was there and that time he did not mentioned his injury in case diary. He remained in clinic till 9:15 PM and forwarded fardbeyan to SHO Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 56/80 Bahera. He mentioned this fact in case diary in Para-7. He recorded re-statement of informant in Para-8. He proceeded for village-Antaur from clinic at about 9:15 PM along with fardbeyan and diary. It was stated by him that after recording the fardbeyan and restatement, he came to know where is the place of occurrence and who are the witnesses. He met with some person in Antaur village and also visited the house of informant. It was stated that he did not investigate this case on 10.09.1992 and 11.09.1992 at 10:00 AM. He recorded the statement of Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) on 12.09.1992 at 10:00 AM. He stated that he did not collect samples of blood from brick-plate and from grass near to the place of occurrence. He did not find any blood-stained clothes. He also did not inspected the documents related with disputed property. He stated that he had not mentioned in diary that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) shown him any prescription, which was not taken by him. He also stated that during course of investigation, it was not stated before him by Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) that appellant-accused Palan Jha assaulted him with farsa on his head having intention to cause death. He also not stated to him about dispute regarding 16 dhur of land, rather it was stated by him that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) stated during course of investigation that when all Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 57/80 three became injured, accused Tirpit Narain Jha snatched a black bag from the hand of Anil Kumar Jha and, thereafter, Durganand Jha assaulted with lathi to Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7), Manoj Kumar Jha (self) and Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He deposed that witness Ram Babu Jha (PW-4) stated before him during investigation that hulla (public alarm) came from the directions where house of accused Tripit Narain Jha was situated and he also heard to said Tripit Narain Jha to give order as to kill. It was stated by him that witness Siban Pawan (PW-5) not stated before him during course of investigation that accused Tripit Narain Jha was given order to kill and also not stated that Arun Kumar Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha with farsa which hit his head. He also stated that this witness has also not stated during investigation before him that Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) has received physical injury, when he was in process to lift Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and also not stated that appellant-accused Durganand Jha assaulted Anant Narain Jha with lathi, which hit on his head and assaulted Anil Kumar Jha, which hit on his eye, face and on back. It was also stated by him that witness Rambabu Jha never stated before him during course of investigation that hulla was coming from the side of house of Tripit Narain Jha and also that Tripit Narain Jha given order to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 58/80 kill. It was also stated by him that informant Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) has not stated before him during investigation that a panchayati was held before two days of this occurrence and also not stated in his restatement that accused Tripit Narain Jha was sitting along with other co-accused persons on his darwaja (out- courtyard). It was stated by him that this witness has not stated before him in his restatement that farsa hit on right side of Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and was also not stated that co- villagers were arrived at the place of occurrence during the course of scuffle. It was also stated by him that Sitapati Barhi (PW-9) not stated before him that he saw occurrence when he reached near to the house of Balendra (PW-3). It was also stated by him that Ram Udar Kuwar (PW-10) not stated before him during investigation as to assault on the neck of Manoj Kumar Jha by appellant-accused Palan Jha hurling farsa and also not stated that he bent down during assault. It was also not stated by him that appellant Durganand Jha gave 2-3 lathi blow to Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). It was stated specifically that Dr. Raj Kishore Chaudhary (PW-2) had not shown him his injury register. He denied that he recorded wrong statement of witnesses in his diary during investigation as to support the case of informant (PW-7).
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 59/80
28. PW-12 Raj Nath Singh, who is A.S.I. and was posted at Pirbahore Police Station, Patna on 09.09.1992, who recorded the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1), on same day, at about 11:00 AM in Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna and thereafter also prepared the inquest report of deceased Anant Narain Jha, which was prepared in three copies by carbon processing. It was deposed by him that said inquest report was witnessed by Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) and Phanikant Chaudhary, where both put their signature before him which he identified before the trial court and same after identification exhibited as Exhibit Nos. 2 and 2/1. He also identified the inquest report which was exhibited as Exhibit No.-12.
28.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him that he found injury in right side of head of the deceased and mentioned about said injury in inquest report as per statement of witnesses. At this stage, a court question was asked that whether these two witnesses stated about reason of death, where he replied that the reason stated by these two witnesses were mentioned in Column No.8 of inquest report. It was also stated by him that he did not prepare any supplementary case diary. These facts are mentioned in station diary of Pirbahore Police Station, Patna. It was stated by him that basis of his deposition is fardbeyan of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 60/80 PW-1 and inquest report of the deceased. It was stated by him that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) stated in his fardbeyan that he taken his father and uncle along with persons accompanied with him to Benipur Hospital for treatment. It was stated by this witness that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) not stated before him that appellant-accused Palan Jha assaulted on his neck by farsa having intention to cause his death. He also stated that PW-1 did not state anything regarding the dispute of 16 dhur land. It was specifically stated by him that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) had not shown him any injury and neither he prepared his injury report. It was also stated that he did not send him to doctor for examination.
29. PW-13 is Phanikant Chaudhary, who deposed in his examination-in-chief that Anant Narain Jha (deceased) was his brother-in-law and on the date of occurrence i.e. on 08.09.1992, he was at his home where he received information regarding occurrence somewhere between 1:30-2:00 PM, through one Ras Bihari Chaudhary and, thereafter, he came to village-Antaur and from there he came to Benipur somewhere between 3:30-4:00 PM. It was deposed by him that he saw his brother-in-law when he was proceeding for DMCH. He also accompanied him. He was admitted in hospital in unconscious condition, where his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 61/80 treatment was started by Dr. Anil Kumar Singh and, from there, he was referred to PMCH, Patna. He reached Patna along with others somewhere between 10:30-11:00 PM. The doctor on seeing his brother-in-law at Patna Medical College and Hospital (PMCH), Patna, declared him dead. It was deposed that Manoj (PW-1) was also treated there. The police came somewhere between 10:30-11:00 AM on 09.09.1992 and recorded the fardbeyan of Manoj Kumar Jha. He identified his signature over there, which was exhibited before court as Exhibit No.2/3. The Police Inspector after examining the dead body, prepared report under carbon processing where he also identified his signature, which on his identification, exhibited as Exhibit No. 2/1. It was deposed that postmortem was conducted thereafter and dead body was handed over to him. He identified the said paper before the court, which for the purpose of identification marked as 'F/1'.
29.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him that letter, as above, which was marked as F/1 was received by them somewhere between1:00-2:00 PM on 09.09.1992 and on same very day, they came to village-Antaur, somewhere between 8:00-9:00 PM, where his last rites was performed in night, somewhere between 9:00-10:00 PM. It was stated by him Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 62/80 that police never recorded his statement in connection with present occurrence during the course of investigation. He also stated that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) also came along with him from Patna to village-Antaur and he performed the last rites of his father Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He denied the suggestion that Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) did not received any injury and he was not medically examined on 09.09.1992.
30. PW-14 is Dr. Akhauri Rabindra Kishore was stated in his examination-in-chief that he was not acquainted with Dr. Vijai Kumar, who was Professor and Head of the Department of Forensic Medicine of P.M.C.H. Patna and identified his handwriting. He further deposed that the postmortem report is in his hand-writing and bears his signature and on identification before learned trial court, the same was exhibited as Exhibit-
13. He further deposed that Dr. Vijai Kumar died recently.
30.1. During cross-examination, the said witness has deposed that he usually conduct postmortem examination in D.M.C.H. He further deposed that Injury No.1 as mentioned in the postmortem report (Exhibit-13) may be possible if a brick falls on the head from some height. In case of depressed fracture, depression on the surface would be of same size and shape as that of the weapon. To the court question, he has stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 63/80 that the shape of the depression has not been mentioned in the postmortem report. He further stated that general injuries are described separately, as cut injuries, lacerated wound etc.
31. PW-15 Ganga Prasad Jha is messenger of learned District Judge, who carried the letter of learned District Judged along with the letter of Public Prosecutor to the Principal of PMCH, Patna, who send him to Forensic Medicine Department, where the doctor Ram Krishna Prasad Singh give him a letter, which he identified before the court and was exhibited as Exhibit No.14. On cross-examination, he denied to have any personal knowledge regarding contents of the letter.
32. The appellants-accused examined one witness Sitaram Jha in their defence, who examined before the learned court as DW-1, who stated in his examination-in-chief that on 08.09.1992, he was at the house of one Gunanand Jha, where he heard hulla (public alarm), raised somewhere between 2-2:30 PM and on said hulla, he came near to the house of Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and saw that Anant Narain Jha was lying to ground unconscious and was surrounded by the people. He came to know from one Lobhi Mishar and Jagdish Jha that one brick plate fell down on the head of Anant Narain Jha from the house of Ram Narain Jha, where construction work was under
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 64/80 progress and he received injury. By that time, Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) were also there and they were in process to carry Anant Narain Jha for Bahera Hospital on tractor.
32.1. On cross-examination, it was stated by him that his son-in-law is of Antaur village and he visited to him on 08.09.1992 and therefore, he was in Antaur village. It was stated that he did not saw falling of brick plate on the head of Anant Narain Jha (deceased). He stated that he remains for ten minutes at the house of Anant Narain Jha. It was stated that he was called by accused Tripit Narain Jha as a witness. It was denied by him that he deposed falsely as he is the relative of accused Tripit Narain Jha and also denied that he did not visited Antaur village on 08.09.1992.
33. It would be appropriate to reproduce para 26 of the legal report as reported in matter of Balu Sudam Khalde (supra) where Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down a guideline regarding appreciation of oral evidence and also with regard to the evidence of injured eye witness, same are as under:
"26. When the evidence of an injured eye-witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:
(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 65/80
(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.
(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.
(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded."
34. The crux of para 26(a) (b) and (c) as mentioned above suggest that until and unless there are no compelling reasons injured eye witness cannot be disbelieved, as it appears greater evidentiary value for the reason that injured witness could not allow the real culprits to escape by falsely implicating innocent persons. It was also held there that presence of injured eye witness at the time and place of occurrence cannot be doubted unless contrary material contradiction surfaced.
35. By importing aforesaid legal ratio to the facts of the present case, it appears that PW-1 namely, Manoj Kumar Jha, who claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence, it appears from his deposition that when he arrived at the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 66/80 occurrence he found his father Anant Narain Jha (deceased) lying over the ground. Meaning thereby, he came at the place of occurrence after actual physical assault was caused to him. The learned trial court also disbelieved him as an eye witness of the occurrence for the reason that the injury which were explained by him as received during the course of occurrence were not supported by medical evidences. It may be the position but, the fact which is apparent from his deposition is that he came on place of occurrence immediately after the actual physical assault caused to deceased and saw appellants-accused equipped with farsa and lathi.
36. It is made clear that only two weapons alleged to be used during occurrence i.e. farsa and lathi as per version of different eye-witnesses including injured eye-witness. It was deposed by PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha that the iron part of farsa as used by appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha was fitted with a wooden stick having length of 2½ - 3 hand, which appears in corroboration with the deposition of PW-7, who also stated during trial that farsa of appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha was fitted by wooden stick having length of 2½ - 3 hands. PW-7, who is informant and injured witness of this case, who present with the deceased from very inception of the occurrence stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 67/80 that when assault was made by appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha with farsa on Anant Narain Jha, he was at a distance of 3-4 hands. Thus, by projecting the seen of occurrence, it appears doubtful as to how a farsa having length of 2½ - 3 hands caused assault on a person who was standing at a distance of 3- 4 hands. This aspect cannot be ignored and to be taken as a material contradiction, which makes assault improbable by any stretch of imagination. We note this fact as a material contradiction, out of deposition of both injured eye-witnesses itself i.e. PW-1 & PW-7.
37. From the deposition of PW-1, Manoj Kumar Jha, it further appears that PW-3, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-9 came to the place of occurrence only when he raised alarm, while he was assaulted by appellant-accused Palan Jha by farsa. If this version of PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha, be taken into consideration then certainly these four witnesses of the occurrence came at place of occurrence, subsequent to arrival of PW-1 namely, Manoj Kumar Jha, who himself came at the place of occurrence after actual physical assault to deceased. Therefore, the deposition of aforesaid witnesses regarding actual fatal physical assault which was caused to Anant Narain Jha (deceased) is not appearing convincing on its face.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 68/80
38. PW-3 is Balendra Jha, who is appearing to be a chance witness as at the time and day of occurrence, he was going to one betel shop. He is relative of informant. It was deposed by him in his examination-in-chief itself that while he was going to betel shop, Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) was coming behind him and he heard alarm of "bachao-bachao" and when he turned, he heard that accused Tripit Narain Jha is giving order to kill. If this part of deposition be taken into consideration, it is also not appearing convincing on its face as other eye witnesses stated before the court that after giving order by Tripit Narain Jha as to kill only thereafter appellants-accused surrounded deceased and PW-7, and thereafter actual physical assault was made. Therefore, alarm as to save first stated by him before order to kill is not convincing.
39. It further appears from the deposition of PW-10 Ram Udar Kunwar that he came at the place of occurrence along with Balendra Jha i.e. PW-3. Therefore, the statement of PW-10 regarding manner of assault which was caused to deceased Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha (PW-7) and also Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) appears doubtful. Interestingly, in para 17 of his cross-examination, he stated that entire occurrence of physical assault was continued for 3-4 minutes Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 69/80 where Anant Narain Jha and Anil Kumar Jha received injuries and after one and half minute thereafter, PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha came to place of occurrence where PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha stated that PW-3 came only after raising his alarm. Therefore, narration as regard to physical assault stated by him in his examination-in-chief itself cannot be believed in view of his doubtful presence at place of occurrence.
40. PW-1 who is the son of the deceased stated before the trial court that he received 4-5 injuries during the course of occurrence, where two assaults were caused by appellant- accused Palan Jha by farsa, where first assault was hit on his wrist and second was on his shoulder. He was not examined at Benipur neither at D.M.C.H., Darbhanga, rather he was examined at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna by Dr. Prem Chand Jha (PW-6), where only one single injury was found as cut with laceration having margin 1½" x 1/2" x 1/8"
over right forearm 2" over right wrist joint on dorsal aspect, which was found simple in nature. It is subsequently stated by PW-6, who examined PW-1 that this type of injury cannot be caused by blunt edge of farsa rather same is caused by lathi or any hard blunt like substance. The report also appeared manipulated where initially it was written that same was caused Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 70/80 due to fall but subsequently it was corrected as 'alleged assault'. But said correction was not made under any initial and same was also without any date and time.
41. PW-12, is Rajnath Singh, who is the Police Officer prepared inquest report of the deceased at Patna Medical College and Hospital, Patna stated before the court that no injury was shown to him by Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) at Patna. It was also stated by him that PW-1 was not sent to doctor by him. If version of PW-1 be taken into consideration then, certainly his medical prescription was not given to police officer during course of investigation. In view of the aforesaid fact and disputed injury report, his version was not accepted by learned trial court itself as injured eye-witness.
42. Now coming to second injured eye witness, who is PW-7, namely, Anil Kumar Jha, who examined by PW-2 Dr. Raj Kishore Choudhary at his private clinic. Exhibit-3 which is injury report does not appears to bear any date on which it was granted. The certificate was not even given to investigating officer of this case.
43. From entire deposition of PW-7, it is nowhere appears that he was admitted or visited even Bahera State Dispensary at any point of time, but, during trial a register of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 71/80 Bahera State Dispensary was produced in support of injury report of PW-7. It was admitted by PW-2 that said register was never produced before police and also that same is his personal register, but stated that he was posted in Bahera State Dispensary. The outdoor slip of PW-7 found at page 5 of register produced by PW-2, Dr. Raj Kishore Choudhary, which was exhibited before the court as Exhibit-3 and was copied from the original register. Thus, issuing an injury report on the basis of outdoor (O.D.) slip of a government hospital, where PW-7 never visited for his treatment, forced us to look his injury report with tinted glass.
44. Now, in the background of above-said doubtful injury report, it would be apposite to look other part of oral evidence of PW-7, who examined before the learned trial court as an injured eye witness and claimed to be accompanied deceased Anant Narain Jha all along occurrence from very inception. It was stated by PW-7 in his fardbeyan that assault was caused by appellant-accused Arun Kumar Jha by "samadhan farsa" on the head of Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and if it is so, then certainly, his injury was to be sharp cut injury by all probabilities but same was found lacerated on his post-mortem report. As per case of prosecution, only lacerated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 72/80 injury was found on the right side of head of deceased Anant Narain Jha. PW-7 also stated that PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha also assaulted by appellant-accused Palan Jha on two occasions by farsa but the injury report of PW-1 is not supporting his version. Therefore, on these two material aspects his oral evidence is also appearing contradictory qua nature of weapon and injury report.
45. PW-11, who is Investigating Officer of this case stated before the learned court that he met with the informant/PW-7 in the clinic of PW-2 Dr. Raj Kishore Choudhary at Benipur and found him in injured condition but, did not make any requisition for injury. He did not even entered the injury of PW-7 on 08.09.1992, the date on which fardbeyan was recorded. It was stated by him that requisition for medical injury of PW-7 was only given after recording his re-statement. The injury report of PW-7 which is Exhibit-3 given by PW-2 is undated and was not given to the police during the course of investigation. These aspect also forced us to look injury report of PW-7/informant of this case with convincing doubt.
46. Through, deposition, PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and PW- 7 stated that bloodstains were present over bricks and also on grass near to place of occurrence, even PW-11 the Investigating Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 73/80 Officer of this case who had visited the place of occurrence after recording statement of informant/PW-7 at about 9:00 PM on the date of occurrence and found blood spots over bricks and grass. He also found blood droplets upto Antaur chowk starting from place of occurrence but admittedly, he did not collected any sample. He stated specifically before the learned trial court that he did not made any attempt to seize weapons of crime. These two aspects cannot be overlooked, as same appears important to establish guilt of any accused persons in any criminal case.
47. It would be apposite, at this stage, to reproduce para 16 and 17 of the report as reported in the matter of Lakshmi Singh (supra) where it has been held that omission by prosecution as to send bloodstained soil and also non-recovery of weapons appears fatal to the prosecution case. The relevant paras are reproducing hereinbelow for better understanding of case.
"14. To add to this another important circumstance is the omission on the part of the prosecution to send the bloodstained earth found at the place of occurrence for chemical examination which could have fixed the situs of the assault. In almost all criminal cases, the bloodstained earth found from the place of occurrence is invariably sent to the Chemical Examiner and his report along with the earth is produced in the court, and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 74/80 yet this is one exceptional case where this procedure was departed from for reasons best known to the prosecution. This also, therefore, shows that the defence version may be true. It is well settled that it is not necessary for the defence to prove its case with the same rigour as the prosecution is required to prove its case, and it is sufficient if the defence succeeds in throwing a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case which is sufficient to enable the court to reject the prosecution version.
15. There is yet another important circumstance which completely falsifies the evidence of the eyewitnesses. All the eyewitnesses have consistently deposed that after the deceased Chulhai Singh was assaulted by Lakshmi Singh and fell down, the appellants Chhathu Singh and Ramprasad Sah assaulted him with lathis. Yet the medical evidence of Dr Ramadhar Singh shows that there was only one solitary injury on the person of the deceased Chulhai Singh and that was on the abdomen. No other injury of any kind was found by the doctor on any part of the body of Chulhai Singh. The absence of lathi injuries on the person of Chulhai Singh completely falsifies the evidence of the eyewitnesses on a most material point. Mr U.P. Singh appearing for the State tried to explain away this important lacuna on the ground that the inquest report shows that there were some sort of injuries on the back of the body of the deceased Chulhai Singh which may have disappeared by the time the doctor examined the deceased Chulhai Singh. We are, however, unable to agree with this somewhat farfetched explanation. It was for the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of the eyewitnesses through expert evidence of the doctor, and if no lathi injuries were found it was affirmatively for the prosecution to give reasons for the same. No Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 75/80 question was, however, put to the doctor in re- examination that if the deceased had received lathi blows the injuries could have disappeared, by the time the doctor examined the deceased. Moreover, the inquest report also does not show any particular physical injury on the person of Chulhai Singh but merely mentions a swollen injury on the back which may be due to the fact that the deceased Chulhai Singh fell down after receiving the bhala blow. The Sub- Inspector was not an expert on the subject and his observation in the inquest report is absolutely valueless. Thus in short, so far as the deceased Chulhai Singh is concerned, the ocular evidence is totally inconsistent with the medical evidence with respect to the assault by Chhathu Singh and Ramprasad Sah. If this matter is false, there is no guarantee that the other assault deposed to by the eyewitnesses was also not false.
16. Similarly so far as deceased Brahmdeo is concerned, the evidence of the witnesses shows that he had received 4 to 5 lathi blows at the hands of his assailants, but the medical evidence of Dr Jaiswal shows that he had one lacerated wound on the scalp, a swelling and three scratches. In view of the ocular evidence we should have expected many more lathi injuries on the person of the deceased Brahmdeo rather than just one swelling and a few scratches, apart from the lacerated wound. Thus this is also a very important suspicious circumstance which negatives the truth of the prosecution case.
17. Finally we might stress, even at the risk of repetition, that the genesis and the origin of the present occurrence appears to be shrouded in deep mystery. The dramatic manner in which the assault is said to have started and the appearance of the accused led by Jagdhari Singh without any rhyme or reason and their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 76/80 assault on persons against whom they had neither any concern or animus introduces an element of inherent improbability in the case. According to the prosecution the main cause of the assault was the refusal of the deceased Chulhai Singh to demolish the marwa which was constructed on the occasion of the marriage of Jaiwanti a daughter of the son of Chulhai Singh. There is no evidence to show that there was bad blood between Ramsagar Singh and Dasrath Singh on the one hand and their cousins Chulhai Singh and Ram Asrey on the other. On the other hand the evidence shows that even after the partition both the groups of the family were living in different portions of the same house, the courtyard being common. PW 6 Dasain Singh clearly admits that at the time of fixing the marwa he had no quarrel with Dasrath Singh or Ramsagar Singh i.e. about 3 days before the occurrence. If the relations between the parties were so cordial only 3 days before the occurrence, we fail to see how Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh made a complete somersault and picked up a quarrel over the demolishing of a marwa when they knew full well, as PW 1 would have us believe, that it was customary that the marwa remained in its original position until a period of 1 1/4 months had elapsed. After all Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh also belonged to the same family and were bound to respect the family custom. It is difficult to believe that even if Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh would raise any objection, they would do so on the day on which chauthari ceremony of the marriage of Jaiwant was held. It also surpasses our comprehension that even if a petty objection was raised, it would culminate in the murder of two close relations by the accused Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh with the aid of the other appellants. So far as the five appellants, namely, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 77/80 Jagdhari Singh, Jagdish Singh, Lakshmi Singh, Ramprasad Sah and Chhathu Singh are concerned, they had neither any animus against the prosecution party nor any friendship with the accused Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh and it is impossible to believe that these five persons would join hands with Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh in the nefarious plan to kill two persons sons without any provocation, without any earthly reason and without any pertinent occasion. On the other hand the preponderance of probabilities seems to indicate that these five appellants had been falsely implicated by PWs 1 to 4 who were their sworn enemies and who must have made it a condition precedent for supporting the evidence of PW 6, if the five appellants are also brought in. In this view of the matter, the prosecution case itself becomes wholly improbable. Furthermore, if PWs 1 to 4 and 6 could go to the extent of falsely implicating the five appellants headed by Jagdhari Singh without their having participated in the occurrence, then the entire fabric of the prosecuticae would collapse, and the fundamental part of the prosecution case would have to be disbelieved. It was, however, contended by the State that there was no reason to disbelieve the evidence with respect to Dasrath Singh and Ramsagar Singh, even if the other five appellants be acquitted. Where all the witnesses enter into a conspiracy to implicate five innocent persons in a murder case, then the backbone of the prosecution is broken, and it would be difficult for the court to rely on such evidence to convict a single accused, particularly when the prosecution does not give any explanation for the grievous and other serious injuries on the person of Dasrath Singh. This is a case where it is not possible to disengage the truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the chaff. The Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 78/80 truth and falsehood are so inextricably mixed together that it is difficult to separate them. Indeed if one tries to do so, it will amount to reconstructing a new case for the prosecution which cannot be done in a criminal case.
48. PW-4 also appears to arrive at place of occurrence on alarm of PW-1 Manoj Kumar Jha. It was stated by him before learned trial court that Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (informant/PW-7) are his relative. It appears from his deposition that when he saw appellant-accused persons surrounded Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (informant/PW-7), and in same condition they were assaulted Anil Kumar Jha and Anant Narain Jha and if it is so, a natural question arises that how he saw actual physical assault caused to all three injured, which were explained in details through his examination-in-chief. PW-9 is also appearing chance witness who stated to be an eye witness of the occurrence from very inception, but, did not explain anything about assault given by accused-appellant Palan Jha to Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1) and therefore, his presence is appearing doubtful and he appears to be a projected eye-witness of the occurrence. PW-9 also appears to arrive at the place of occurrence on alarm of PW-1, Manoj Kumar Jha, who himself arrived on the place of occurrence after actual assault. He failed to stated that PW-1 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 79/80 made any effort to save him from the assault of farsa as waived by appellant-accused Palan Jha, rather he stated that as PW-1 stand, during occurrence, he received injury on his wrist, which appears contradictory to the version as narrated by informant/PW-7. Admittedly, assault caused to Anant Narain Jha (deceased) and Anil Kumar Jha (informant) were also made prior to arrival of Manoj Kumar Jha (PW-1). Therefore, any descriptive statement regarding assault caused to deceased and PW-7 by this witness is also not appearing convincing.
49. In view of above discussions, it appears that it cannot be said that the prosecution established its case beyond all reasonable doubt against above-named appellants-accused.
50. Accordingly, both appeals stand allowed.
51. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 23.04.1994 and order of sentence dated 03.05.1994 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.84 of 1993 arising out of Bahera P.S. Case No. 218 of 1992 is quashed and set-aside.
52. The appellants named above are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Since all the appellants named- above are on bail, they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds, sureties are also stands discharged from their Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.223 of 1994 dt.19-10-2023 80/80 liabilities.
53. Office is directed to send back the Lower Court Records, along with copy of judgment.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J.) (Chandra Shekhar Jha, J.) Sanjeet/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 27-09-2023 Uploading Date 19-10-2023 Transmission Date 19-10-2023