Patna High Court
Ram Chandra Bhuian & Anr vs State on 10 July, 2012
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha, Aditya Kumar Trivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.171 of 1990
===========================================================
1. Ram Chandra Bhuian
2. Khirodhar Bhuian, both sons of late Ganu Bhuian
3. Rambricha Bhuian
4. Jageshwar Bhuian, both sons of Sri Khirodhar Bhuian
5. Rajdeo Bhuian son of Sri Rameshwar Bhuian, All residents of village Gulbed,
P.S. Barachatti, Distt-Gaya
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Neeraj Kumar @ Sanidh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mrs. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA)
Date: 10-07-2012
The five appellants have filed this appeal against judgment dated
24.03.1990 passed by 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial
No. 106/1987 and 1/1987 whereby and whereunder they have been
convicted for offence under Sections 302/149 IPC and sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Though they have also been
convicted under Section 323 IPC but no separate sentence against them has
been passed on this count.
2. The prosecution case, as has been unfolded by the informant
PW-6, Gobind Singh in his First Information Report (Exhibit-3) recorded
at 8:30 A.M. on 27.04.86 at Barachatti, Police Station, Nawisan Khan PW-
9, the police officer, in brief is that on the preceding day in the evening at
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 2
about 7:00 P.M. these appellants along with one Rameshwar Bhuiyan
variously armed with Bhala, Gadasa and Lathi are said to have arrived at
the Darwaza of the informant. It is said that thereafter Rameshawar had
challenged the informant and other family members sitting at the Darwaza
as with regard to some tutoring and instigating the villagers against them
which resulted into some verbal altercation between both the parties
whereafter Rameshwar had assaulted the brother of the informant Shankar
with Gadasa as a result of whereof he had sustained injury and fallen on the
ground. The informant had also alleged that the appellant Ramchandra
Bhuiyan, thereafter had assaulted him (Informant) with Bhala but as the
informant could catch hold of the Bhala he had sustained injury on his
hands as also on his head. It is the further case of the informant that rest of
the persons including the appellants other than Ramchandra Bhuiyan had
assaulted his other family members with Lathi. The informant had also
claimed that on Hulla raised by him Nanku Bhuiyan (PW-3), Bandhu
Bhuiyan (PW-2) and Muneshwar Bhuiyan (PW-4) had reached at the place
of occurrence as a result whereof appellants and other accused persons had
fled away from there. The First Information Report was having been
instituted at 8:30 A.M. on 27.04.1986 had led to institution of Barachatti
P.S. Case No. 65/1986 and the police after having completed its
investigation had submitted its charge-sheet for various offence including
Section 302 IPC and the case being exclusively triable by Court of sessions
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 3
was committed on 25.03.1987 whereafter charges for committing offence
under Section 302/149 IPC were framed against all the appellants as well
as Rameshwar Bhuiyan, while charge under Section 323 IPC was framed
against appellants 2 to 5 and after completion of trial the impugned
judgment of conviction and sentence was passed on 24.03.1990.
3. This Court having found that the, Rameshwar Bhuiyan who is
said to have given the fatal assault on the deceased having not filed his
appeal, had made an enquiry from the court below and it has come on
record that Rameshwar Bhuiyan did not prefer any appeal against the
impugned judgment of his conviction and sentence in fact having served
his sentence had also been released from jail on 24.12.1997 with a special
concession on the ground of his age being more than 85 years.
4. It has to be also kept in mind that the two appellants namely,
Rajdeo Bhuiyan and Ram Briksh Bhuiyan in the judgment dated
24.03.1990have been shown to be aged about 12 years and 20 years respectively which would mean that when the occurrence had taken place on 26.04.1986 they were around 8 years and 16 years respectively. Thus, the impact of determination of their such age by the trial court will have to be also gone into by this Court in view of Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000.
5. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel appearing as an Amicus Curiae on behalf of the appellants had submitted that true it is that all the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 4 ingredients of a successful prosecution has been brought on record by the prosecutor having the assistance of a very compact First Information Report but then keeping into account that four persons were allegedly injured in the alleged occurrence about 7:00 P.M. in the night of 26.04.1986 and yet the FIR was recorded on the next day after 13 and a half hours i.e. 8:30 A.M. on 27.04.1986 which by itself would go to show that the prosecution had sufficient time of meeting of the mind as also to implicate innocent persons including the appellants. Apart from aforesaid criticism regarding delay in lodging of First Information Report by the informant, PW-6, he has also submitted that the prosecution had virtually been crippled on account of the perfunctory investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer (PW-9) who in his evidence in court has in fact tried to conceal the objective findings and material facts. In this regard, he has explained that the Officer In-charge, PW-9 had only recorded the First Information Report whereafter he had handed over investigation to another police officer Raji Safdar Haya (PW-10) but exhibited portion of the case diary sought to be referred to be relied by the prosecution and the dying declaration would go to show that the Investigating Officer had recorded the statement of the injured Shankar Singh Bhola at 9:00 A.M. whereas Ext-2 is injury report prepared by the Doctor is also having the same time of 9:00 A.M. and when in the injury report the Doctor has given its conclusive opinion that Shankar was in a sub-conscious position, it would Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 5 be difficult to accept the version of the Investigating Officer that he could record a clear statement of Shankar in that condition.
6. Mr. Neeraj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants has also highlighted that when it is also admitted fact that though four persons are said to have sustained injury in the evening of 26.04.1986, and one of the injured also claimed that he (PW-1) became unconscious, it would be difficult to believe that all of them could start only in the morning on the next day and that too initially for the police station before reaching to the hospital for their injuries to be examined by the Doctor only on being sent by the police. In this connection, it has also been submitted that the death of Shankar, the deceased had taken place after four days of the occurrence while he was being taken for further treatment at Ranchi Medical College Hospital which according to him would be indicative of the fact that aforesaid Shankar was incapable of giving his dying declaration and in fact having a reputation of being a drunkard and womanizer, as has also been suggested to PW-1, had actually received injuries on his person and succumbed to them in an altogether different manner but the appellants and others had been falsely implicated as a result of meeting of the minds by prosecution party which had sufficient time to hatch its plot.
7. Mr. Neeraj has also submitted that if the informant‟s version after discarding the alleged dying declaration of Shankar recorded by the police is critically examined, it would become clear that there was no Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 6 unlawful assembly with an intention to cause murder of the deceased Shankar who had actually succumbed to his injuries after four days of the occurrence. In this regard, he has tried to distinguish the case of other appellants with that of Rameshwar Bhuiyan who is said to have given the fatal incised injury on the person of deceased Shankar. Finally, Mr. Kumar has also concentrated on the laches on the part of the Investigating Officer in conducting a proper investigation and had submitted that apart from the fact that the conduct of the Investigating Officer of examining of the injured witnesses at that point of time they were being examined by the Doctor in the Hospital, the very fact that even when he had claimed to be immediately at the place of occurrence along with informant PW-6, he did not collect any vital clue including copious blood or blood stained clothes of the injured persons including that of deceased Shankar which were allegedly found by him over there. He has summed up his submissions by taking a specific stand that there is no reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to hold these appellants guilty.
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State has stated that the finding recorded by the court below would not require any interference by the Court specially when the issues raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been full answered not only in the impugned judgment but also are sufficiently supported from the materials available on record. She has, in this regard, submitted that delay in lodging in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 7 First Information Report in this case would not be fatal to the prosecution because the informant in the First Information Report had clearly stated that on account of occurrence taking place in the night he had come to the police station in the next morning. As with regard to the laches on the part of the Investigating Officer she has submitted that not all anomalies committed by the Investigating Officer would cripple the prosecution case inasmuch as the substantive piece of evidence against appellant still would point out to their involvement by forming part of unlawful assembly with Rameshwar who had not only assaulted Shankar but three other witnesses namely, PWs-1, 5 and 6 also in the same occurrence had received injuries on their person. As with regard to the timing of the dying declaration and examination of Shankar being the same i.e. 9:00 A.M. on 27.04.1986 it has been suggested that Doctor‟s timing cannot be said to be incorrect because it is in chain of four persons namely of the deceased as well as PWs-1, 5 and 6 and therefore whatever has been recorded as a time of dying declaration in Ext-5 has to be understood in the context that Investigating Officer was trying to do his best to get the injured persons examined and that is how there have been some errors in mentioning of the timing by him in the dying declaration of Shankar recorded by him.
9. Before the aforementioned submissions are taken into consideration, it would be necessary for me to take stock of evidence on record.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 8
10. In this case, prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses out of whom PW-6 Gobind Singh, the informant, PW-5 Chhathia (wife of the deceased) and PW-1 Bansi Bhuiyan are said to be injured eye witnesses. PW-2 Bandhu Bhuiyan, PW-3 Nanhku Bhuiyan and PW-4 Muneshwar Bhuiyan are said to be the witnesses who had arrived at the place of occurrence on hulla and had partly seen the occurrence. PW-7 Dr. Kapildeo Prasad had conducted the postmortem on the person of the deceased, whereas P.W.8 Dr. Nirmal Kumar Kundu is the doctor who had examined the injuries on the person of all the four injured persons, namely, PW-1, PW-6 and PW-6 as also the deceased. PW-9 Nawisan Khan is the Sub Inspector of Police who had recorded the First Information Report of PW-6 and PW-10 Raji Safdar Haya is the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police who had taken up the investigation immediately after recording of the First Information Report and had submitted the charge sheet. In addition to it the prosecution had proven five exhibits out of which Ext.1 is the Postmortem Report, Exts. 2, 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3 are the injury reports of the four injured persons including the deceased, Ext.3 is the original F.I.R., Ext.4 is the signature of Ram Ratan Prasad, a Police Officer on the charger sheet, Ext.5 is the alleged Dying Declaration of the deceased as recorded in paragraph 3 of the case diary by PW-10, the Investigating Officer.
11. The defence did not examine any witness nor had proven any exhibit in support of its case but from the tenor of cross-examination of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 9 prosecution witnesses as also statement of the appellants recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. it appears that their case was one of false implication concerning the alleged occurrence in which Shankar (the deceased) on account of his being a drunkard and volatile was subjected to assault on his person as also of his other family members who had gone to save him. The further case of the defence seems to be that the prosecution party had in a well pre-meditated manner implicated the appellants by filing a First Information Report after 13½ hours of the actual occurrence only on account of enmity.
12. As would be apparent the main witness for the prosecution is the informant (PW-6), who has not only lodged the First Information Report but also claims that he was also assaulted in course of injury inflicted on the deceased as also wife of the deceased (PW-5) and the neighbour (PW-1). PW-6, however, in his evidence is found to be wholly inconsistent with his earliest version given in the First Information Report. It has to be noted that PW-6 in the F.I.R. which was lodged after 13½ hours of the occurrence had claimed occurrence to have taken place at his Darwaza of his house but the Investigating Officer (PW-10) in his deposition has stated that he did not find any mark of assault on the suggested place of occurrence. This aspect of the matter becomes significant, inasmuch as four persons are said to have received bleeding injuries as found by the doctor (PW-8). In fact the Investigating Officer in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 10 paragraph 6 had also stated that there was nothing found by him at the suggested place of occurrence which could be seized. That would really go to show that the place of occurrence as suggested by PW-6 and reiterated by other two eye witnesses, namely, PW-5and PW-1 have not at all been established.
13. The inconsistent evidence of PW-6 as with regard to manner of occurrence gives a further fatal blow to the prosecution case. In this regard it has to be noted that PW-6 in his First Information Report had specifically stated that these appellants alongwith Rameshwar Bhuiyan having arrived at his Darwaza of the house had indulged in a free fight in which Rameshwar Bhuiyan had given only one blow of Gadasa on the head of Shankar (deceased), as a result whereof Shankar had fallen on the ground and had become injured. The only other specific allegation of assault in the First Information Report by the informant was against appellant no.1 who is said to have assaulted the informant by a Bhala hitting in his hand and on his head. The informant in the First Information Report had made an omnibus allegation against rest of the appellants to have also assaulted all of them. This part of the manner of occurrence, however, was changed by him in court by alleging that Shankar was assaulted by Rameshwar by Gadasa on his head, as a result whereof Shankar had fallen down, whereafter the appellant Khirodhar had assaulted Shankar with a Tangi on his head and rest of the appellants had assaulted Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 11 Shankar with lathi. This part of improvement made by the informant (PW-
6) is deliberate, inasmuch as the first doctor who had examined the injury on Shankar immediately after lodging of the First Information Report had found three incised injury on the head of Shankar and therefore, the prosecution case immediately was sought to be changed by introducing Khirodhar also as an assailant of Shankar. In fact such manner of occurrence as disclosed by PW-6 in court in his evidence on others including himself does not inspire confidence because in the First Information Report the only person to have caused injury on his person was Ram Chandra with Bhala both on his hand and in his head but in court he had introduced the appellant Jageshwar in addition to Ram Chandra as the persons to have given injury on his person. What has made PW-6 also wholly unreliable is that none of the appellants as also Rameshwar, a co- accused, was said to be armed with Tangi. In course of deposition in court he had alleged Khirodhar to be armed with Tangi. This part of improvement again as with regard to the weapon for changing the manner of occurrence was evolved by the informant (PW-6) for explaining incised injury on the person of Shankar. In his cross-examination PW-6 however also got fully exposed, inasmuch as he had claimed that from the injuries inflicted on the person of Shankar there was a huge bleeding which had scattered all over the floor at his Darwaza in the house and he had actually shown them to the Investigating Officer (PW-10) at 12 noon on the same Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 12 day on which the First Information Report was recorded and the Investigating Officer having seen them did not seize any blood from there. The Investigating Officer, however, has categorically denied presence of any blood at the suggested place of occurrence, which would mean that PW-6 was trying to improve upon his version both with regard to place and the manner of occurrence.
14. From the evidence of PW-6 it is also very apparent that he has given no explanation for delayed lodging of the First Information Report. It has to be noted that there were four injured persons including the deceased who had bleeding injuries on their person. They had sustained injury at about 7:00 P.M. in the evening and though the police Station according to this witness was at a distance of 1½ mile from the village yet no one amongst them or PWs-2, 3 and 4 who had immediately arrived at the place of occurrence had gone to the Police Station for informing the police. The manner in which the informant has first claimed to have gone to the Police Station on next day with all the injured persons and got his First Information Report recorded at 8:30 A.M. would suggest that their injuries were awaiting for a forwarding note to be prepared by the Police Officer for its being examined by the doctor, inasmuch as PW-6 has categorically admitted in his evidence that despite such injuries on the four injured persons including himself no treatment was given to them in whole of the night in the village and that they had gone to the Police Station next Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 13 morning, whereafter they were sent to the hospital for examination of the injury by the doctor. Thus, from the evidence of PW-6 it would appear that he is wholly untrustworthy and unreliable witness who had found sufficient time, nearly 13½ hours, for meeting of mind for implicating these appellants.
15. The evidence of PW-5, another injured eye witness, namely, Chhathia, the wife of the deceased Shankar, would virtually seal the fate of the prosecution case, inasmuch as she has claimed that the occurrence had taken place while she was at her Darwaza alongwith her husband Shankar and her brother-in-law, the informant (PW-6) as also his neighbour (PW-
1). Her evidence also on the point of place of occurrence is inconsistent with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, inasmuch as she had also claimed that huge bleeding was caused from the injury of her husband which had expanded over the floor in deviation of 1 to 1½ hands and the Investigating Officer during the course of inspection of the place of occurrence had seized blood from the place of occurrence. As noted above, the Investigating Officer did not find any blood at the suggested place of occurrence nor did he find any trace or support from any statement given by any person in the story of PW-5 that while the appellants and Rameshwar had arrived and had started assaulting the husband of PW-5 she was breast feeding her child and the child was abandoned on the arrival of the accused persons. In fact there is no such story given by any of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 14 witnesses that PW-5 was breast feeding her child when the occurrence had taken place. Her statement that the blood soaked clothes of her husband Shankar was taken by the Police Officer also does not get support from the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who has categorically denied to have seized anything from the place of occurrence, inasmuch as he in his cross- examination had clearly stated that there was nothing worth seizing at the place of occurrence. Even with regard to assault her evidence in court does not inspire confidence, inasmuch as she had claimed that when her husband Shankar was assaulted, she had gone to fend him in course of which she had received injury and thereafter PW-6 and PW-1 also had received injuries in the hands of the accused. In fact absence of any injury in the hands of PW-5, the wife, from which she was alleged to have made attempt to save her husband would by itself go to show that the manner of occurrence has not at all been supported by this lady eye witness who had only two bruise injuries, one in her right thigh near knee and the other in his left shoulder. The injuries found on the person of PW-5 by the doctor PW-8 reads as follows:
"On the same day at 9.30 A.M. Chhathia Devi, W/o Shankar Singh, of same village and found the following injuries on her person:
1. Bruise 3"x2" in right thigh near knee
2. Bruise 2 ½"x1" in left shoulder Injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt substance as a lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours."
16. Moreover according to PW-5 there was no means of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 15 identification at the place of occurrence and the night was dark and thus the identification of the accused persons much less seeing the entire assault on four persons was itself not possible. It has to be noted that none of the witnesses in their evidence have suggested presence of any means of identification at the place of occurrence while admitting that the occurrence had taken place between 7:00 to 8:00 P.M. in the night which in turn would make the whole prosecution case both with regard to place and the manner of occurrence doubtful.
17. The veracity of this witness PW-5 also becomes doubtful because in her cross-examination she had also admitted that there was existing enmity between the accused persons and her husband as also her brother-in-law. It is in this backdrop that her other statement disclosing herself to be present at the time of inspection of place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer and her claim of seizure of blood from the place of occurrence has fully exposed her to be untrustworthy and unreliable witness. It has in fact come on record in the evidence of the Investigating Officer that he had inspected the place of occurrence only in presence of PW-6, the informant. Thus the reason for PW-5 giving such an exaggerated evidence is only to secure herself as an eyewitness but then again when she herself had claimed that she had been taken to hospital and had remained admitted for eight days, a fact, which has not at all been substantiated by any of the evidence on record, clubbed with the circumstance that her Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 16 injury had been found by the Doctor to be simple would by itself suggest that this witness who as per her own version was feeding her child at the time of the alleged occurrence and claimed to thrown away her child when the accused persons came at her Darwaza cannot be relied at all much less as an eyewitness.
18. That would leave the prosecution to rely on only other eye witness PW-1 Bansi Bhuiyan. PW-1, however, has given the manner of occurrence in a totally different manner, inasmuch as according to him Shankar was assaulted by Rameshwar by a Gadasa and Khirodhar by a Tangi. He had categorically stated that no other person had assaulted Shankar but they were only present there. It has to be noted that he has altogether omitted the story of assault by Bhala on informant (PW-6) and has only stated that all the six persons had assaulted him (PW-1) as also wife of Shankar (PW-5) and Govind (PW-6). In Examination-in-Chief he has stated that Shankar was in a drunken state and in cross-examination he had revealed the character of Shankar in a manner which would make Shankar not only a habitual drunkard but in fact a man of loose character and a womanizer. PW-1 in this regard had stated as follows:
" "kadj ls xkWo okyksa dks fius [kkus ds pyrs cjkcj crdaPq pu gksrk jgrk FkkA "kadj ih ysus ij xkyh xykSt djrk Fkk ftlds fy;s cLrh ds yksx vkSj ;s eqnbZ yksx cjkcj euk djrs FksA bl ckr dks ysdj xkWo esa dbZ ckj iapk;rh Hkh gwbZ FkhA ge Hkh ml iapk;rh esa FksA iapk;rh esa "kadj dks yksx dgrs Fks fd ih [kkdj xkWo xqMbZ ugha djksAa nwljksa dh cgq csVh dks viuh Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 17 cgq csVh le>ksA**
19. Thus, according to PW-1 Shankar was a man of questionable character and was always being rebuked for his bad habits. In such a situation when PW-1 is the own brother of the appellant Ramchandra, appellant Khirodhar and co-accused Rameshwar, whereas appellant Jageshwar and the appellant Rambriksh are his own nephew, their false implication at the instance of PW-1 on account of enmity becomes an admitted fact, inasmuch as in cross-examination he has revealed that on account of Ladai Jhagara with his brother appellant Khirodhar and co- accused Rameshwar he had started living separately by constructing his own house. Thus, even after his being an injured witness his evidence does not inspire confidence specially when he has himself stated that he had become unconscious after he had been assaulted, but no other witness had claimed PW-1 to have lost his consciousness. PW-6 the informant in fact had clearly stated that none of the four injured persons had sustained such injuries which required them to be taken to the hospital in the night and as such, they had started for the Police Station and were taken to the hospital only in the next morning. In fact PW-1 has also seriously denied the manner of occurrence when he has said that after assault on Shankar Singh (deceased) he was assaulted. A question would arise that if he had already become unconscious on account of assault on his person he could not have visualized the assault on at least PW-5 and PW-6. His evidence in court Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 18 that he had become unconscious and could regain consciousness in the hospital on the next day is also not supported even from the medical evidence, inasmuch as PW-8 the doctor, who had examined him his injuries, had found him in a conscious state and to have simple injuries of bruise or laceration. The injuries found on the person of PW-1 by the doctor (PW-8) reads as follows:
"On the same day at about 9.45 A.M. I examined the Banshi Bhuiyan son of Bonu Bhuiyan of the same village and found the following injuries on his person:
1. Lacerated wound 1 ½"x ½"x skin deep on anturn part of head.
2. Bruise 4"x1" in right shoulder
3. Bruise 4 ½"x 1 ½" on back on right scapular region
4. Bruise 2 ½"x1" on waist on right side
5. Bruise 2 1/4"x 1" on left knee near elbow All injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt weapon such as a lathi. Age within 24 hours."
Thus, it would be difficult for me to hold that PW-1 was an eye witness to the occurrence or had supported the prosecution case as set out by the informant (PW-6).
20. Normally having discarded the evidence of PWs-1, 5 and 6 as eye witnesses, it was not necessary for me to refer to the evidence of three witnesses, PWs-2, 3 and 4 who are said to have arrived at the place of occurrence after hulla of assault on injured persons but then keeping in view that they are immediate neighbours of the informant (PW-6) and could corroborate the prosecution case, I have also looked into their evidence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 19
21. PW-2 Bandhu Bhuiyan who has claimed to have his house adjacent to the house of PW-6 had admitted that he had arrived after assault on Shankar had already taken place and that he was first among villagers apart from PW-1, injured, to have arrived at the place of occurrence. He has, however, failed to explain the manner of assault on any of the injured person after admitting that when he had arrived Shankar had already examined the injury and was lying on the floor. He has, therefore, also ruled out presence of PW-3 and PW-4 to be present at the place of occurrence. He is a rustic witness whose evidence has been recorded in question and answer form and when he had also clearly admitted that on the date of occurrence Shankar (deceased) and Govind (PW-6) as also others were in a totally drunken condition, it would become clear that he has nothing more to support the prosecution case except naming the appellants and Rameshwar. The evidence of PW-2, therefore, in my views is of no assistance to the prosecution.
22. PW-3 Nanhku Bhuiyan has himself admitted that when he had arrived at the place of occurrence he did not see any part of assault, inasmuch as all that he had seen was that the accused persons were fleeing away and Shankar to have already died. In a question by the court when he had tried to claim that he had seen the occurrence, his such stand had also got immediately exposed wherein he had admitted that whatever statement he had given to the police as with regard to the occurrence was based on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 20 hearsay as with regard to the occurrence. He too has stated that there was a pitch dark at the time of occurrence which had taken place around 7 to 8 P.M. in the night and there was no means of identification including a lantern with him. Thus, evidence of PW-3 also does not throw any light on the manner of occurrence much less on the issue of assault and all that can be said that he had tried to support the prosecution case to the extent of appellants running away from the place of occurrence. It has, however, come in evidence of PW-5, the wife of the deceased Shankar, that all the appellants had their own houses adjacent to the house of PWs-5 and 6, the prosecution party and therefore, merely because the accused persons were going to their house would not make them also assailant of the deceased.
23. PW-4 Muneshwar Bhuiyan is the last witness of the prosecution who is also said to have arrived at the place of occurrence on hulla but in his cross-examination he had claimed that when he had reached there 10-20 villagers had already assembled. As noted above, none of such villagers have been examined and therefore, when in his cross-examination he has also stated that when he reached there he has found Shankar Singh to be dead, it would by itself be sufficient to show that he had seen no part of occurrence or had at least from his deposition no part of the prosecution case gets any corroboration.
24. In the light of the aforementioned oral evidence it would be difficult for this Court to hold the appellants guilty against whom there is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 21 no allegation of assault on the person of the deceased in the First Information Report. True it is that all the six witnesses have tried to implicate these appellants as associate of the main assailant Rameshwar but then the crucial question is has the prosecution come out with clean hands in putting its version with regard to the place or manner of occurrence? As noted above, at least four persons were said to have received injuries in the night at around 7:00 P.M. but even when all of them had bleeding injuries, neither any effort was made for their treatment in the night in the village nor any information was given to the police in whole of the night. Assuming that PWs-1, 5 and 6 with Shankar were injured, their neighbours PWs-2, 3 and 4 being present immediately after the occurrence and to have also known about the name of the assailants could have easily informed the police but nothing of this sort was done by the prosecution for whole of the night. It was in fact left for PW-6 to go to the Police Station alongwith all the three injured on next morning at about 8:30 P.M. and to have given his fardbayan to police for institution of the First Information Report and thereafter for being sent to the hospital for examination of the injury and treatment. There is however no explanation whatsoever by the prosecution for such gross delay in lodging of the First Information Report.
25. Apart from the delay in lodging of the First Information Report what makes the prosecution case wholly doubtful is the inconsistent version with regard to the injuries on the person of the deceased Shankar. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 22 As noted above, in the F.I.R. the specific allegation of the informant (PW-
6) was that Shankar had been given only one Gadasa blow by Rameshwar and no other person had assaulted him. The Doctor (PW-8), however, had examined Shankar on next day at 9:00 A.M. and had found the following injuries:
" 1. Incised wound 1½"x ½"x1/3" on head- front region
2. Incised would 2"x ½"x 1/3" on head- right posterior part
3. Incised wound 1½"x ½"x 1/3" on head- left posterior part
4. Abrasion 1½"x 1" on right shoulder
5. Abrasion 2"x ½" on chest- both side
6. Bruise 5"x 1" on back All injuries were simple except 1 to 3 have caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Garasa or Tangi and 4 to 6 by hard and blunt substance such as lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours."
26. The doctor PW-8 as with regard to the aforesaid injuries on Shankar and holding some of them to be grievous in his cross-examination had stated that "since the patient was in semi conscious state I had opined that injuries nos. 1 to 3 on Shankar were grievous."
27. The First Information Report was lodged at 8:30 A.M. and the injury of Shankar was examined by the doctor at 9:00 A.M. on the same day which would mean that Shankar had three incised injuries but then the prosecution has explained only one injury by Gadasa blow given by Rameshwar. Tangi as a weapon was not mentioned in the First Information Report much less was given in the hand of the appellant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 23 Khirodhar. It appears that the prosecution party having thus found three incised injuries on the person of Shankar in the injury report had to evolve a different case and that is how Khirodhar was introduced by the prosecution with a Tangi to have assaulted on the head of Shankar. Unfortunately in absence of allegation of repetition of blow either against Rameshwar or Khirodhar by their respective weapon, namely, Gadasa and Tangi respectively it still remains shrouded mystery as to who had given three incised injuries on the person of Shankar? The fact that these three injuries were separate in nature has been admitted by the doctor (PW-7) conducting the postmortem. Thus, in absence of any explanation to the third incised injury on the person of Shankar the prosecution case even otherwise gets a severe point and the manner of occurrence as alleged by the prosecution even otherwise becomes doubtful.
28. Learned counsel for the State, however, had tried to rely on Dying Declaration of Shankar recorded by the Investigating Officer immediately after recording of the F.I.R. and she has tried to explain that when the deceased himself in his statement to the police had stated about the injury inflicted on him both by Rameshwar and the appellant Khirodhar, the omission thereof by the informant in the F.I.R. would not cause any prejudice to the prosecution case.
29. I have carefully looked into the alleged Dying Declaration recorded by PW-8 in the case diary and in my considered opinion the same Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 24 does not inspire any confidence for a simple reason that PW-8 had recorded such alleged Dying Declaration of Shankar at 9:00 A.M. at a point of time when he was being examined by the doctor (PW-8) in the hospital exactly at the same time i.e. 9:00 A.M. Moreover, the doctor in his evidence on the basis of medical report had stated that Shankar was in a semi conscious position. A person in a semi conscious position cannot give a fluent statement as has been sought to be recorded by the Police Officer (PW-10). In fact as the sequence of events have emerged on the basis of materials on record the F.I.R. was lodged at 8:30 A.M. by PW-9, the Sub Inspector of Police who thereafter had handed over the investigation to PW-10 and PW-10 had firstly copied the F.I.R. in the case diary, whereafter he had taken the further statement of the informant at 8:50 A.M. and had recorded the statement of Shankar Singh (deceased) at 9:00 A.M. followed by the statement of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-4 before 10:00 A.M., whereas the doctor had examined the injuries of Shankar Singh at 9:00 A.M., that of the informant at 9:15 A.M. and the injury of PW-5 at 9:30 A.M. as well as injury of PW-1 at 9:45 A.M. Thus, if the injured Shankar alongwith other three injured persons, namely, PWs-1, 5 and 6 were present in the hospital as is conclusively shown by the evidence of the doctor (PW-8) and his injury reports, Exts. 2, 2/1, 2/2 and 2/3, there would be no question of recording of Dying Declaration by PW-10 at the alleged time of 9:00 A.M. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in rejecting Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 25 the alleged Dying Declaration of Shankar. There would be yet another circumstance for rejecting the so called Dying Declaration of Shankar, inasmuch as according to PW-9 Shankar was in semi conscious condition at 9:00 A.M. on 27.4.1986. He is, however, said to have died on 2.5.1986 and the doctor (PW-7) who had conducted the postmortem had found him to be in a state of Coma. The relevant portion of postmortem report is extracted hereinbelow:
" 1. Stitched wound over right parietal region of skull of size 1" in length.
2. Stitched wound over left parietal region of skull of size 2" in length.
3. Stitched wound over frontal region of skull of size 2" in length.
On dissection extra blood clots were found in right side of brain.
4. Healed abrasion over right and left shoulder joint each of size 1"x1/2"
5. Healed abrasion over right and left temporal region of skull each of size 1"x1/2"
The above injuries were antemortem in nature. Injury No.1 was superfluous in nature and rest were simple. Injuries no. 4 and 5 have caused by hard and blunt object such as lathi. Regarding other injuries sample was reserved for opinion. In my opinion the cause of death was Coma & compassion due to injury no.1. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours from the examination."
30. As a matter of fact the prosecution has deliberately suppressed as to how Shankar was treated in between 27.4.1986 to 1.5.1986 and where was he kept for all this period. His such treatment definitely was not done in Barachatti hospital whereas his injury report was prepared by the doctor (PW-8) and all that has been said by the prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 26 that Shankar in course of being taken for treatment to Ranchi Medical College and Hospital had died on 1.5.1986. This aspect of the matter has also not been clarified by the Investigating Officer who also says that he could come to know of the death of Shankar from the informant whereafter he had filed an application in court for adding section 304 I.P.C. in the First Information Report which was initially lodged under sections 147/148/149/323/324 I.P.C. It would thus be clear that Shankar was not in a position to give any statement to the police much less a dying declaration and the entire investigation which has been conducted by PW-10 would itself reveal that the prosecution case was expanded for implicating the appellants on a concocted version of PW-6, an employee working in coaliary as admitted by PW-1 in his evidence in court.
31. The over anxiety of the informant (PW-6) in getting a delayed version of the occurrence recorded as a First Information Report and giving it a shape by alleged Dying Declaration of the deceased is further exposed to the brink from his own injuries vis-à-vis the manner of occurrence as alleged by him. As has been noted above PW-6 in the F.I.R. as with regard to his own injury had claimed that the appellant Ramchandra had assaulted him by a Bhala which had caused him injury in his hand and on his head. In his deposition in the court he had improved his earlier version of assault by alleging that apart from Ramchandra assaulting him with Bhala on his head near his eye, Jageshwar had assaulted him on his Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 27 hand with lathi. This part was a definite deliberate improvement made by PW-6 because the doctor (PW-8) while examining his injury at 9:15 A.M. immediately after recording of the F.I.R. did not find any penetrating injury which alone can be caused by a Bhala. The injuries found on the person of PW-6 by the doctor (PW-8) reads as follows:
"On the same day at 9:15 A.M. one Govind Singh, son of Ramdas Singh of the same village and found the following injuries on his person:
1. Lacerated wound 1"x1/4"xskin deep on right hand on mussel.
2. Bruise 3"x1½" on left hand on mussel.
3. Abrasion 1"x1/2" on left hand mussel
4. Bruise 2½"x 1½" on left forearm
5. Lacerated wound 1 ½"x1/4"x skin deep near right eye brow.
6. Bruise 4"x1" on back of left scapular region
7. Bruise 3"x1" on back on right scapular region The injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt substance such as a lathi. Age of injuries within 24 hours.
32. Thus, in view of the aforementioned finding of the doctor as with regard to the injury on the person of PW-6 and there being no penetrating injury, the manner of assault on his person by Bhala is found to be totally false specially when all other witnesses including PW-5 and PW- 1 claiming to be eye witnesses have not stated assault by Bhala on the person of PW-6.
33. It is not that the rejection of dying declaration of the deceased alone could have been the settler but when injured eye witnesses have also contradicted each other both on the point place and manner of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 28 occurrence and one highly interested witness namely, PWs- 5 and 6, who had tried to absolve the deceased, having a habit of drinking and womanizing, by making him to be martyr on account of the assault on his person the prosecution case becomes highly doubtful. The overall picture which thus emerges on the basis of evidence on record and gets further substantiated from the doctor‟s opinion conducting postmortem report would leave nothing for speculation that the deceased Shankar after four days of sustaining his injuries had in fact succumbed to them in an altogether different occurrence. It has to be also taken into account that the Investigating Officer has virtually exposed the prosecution case when he has stated in Paragraph-6 that he did not find any blood at the place of occurrence which was shown to him by PW-6. He has further stated that he did not find any thing worth at the place of occurrence which could have been seized by him. The very fact that there were in all four injured persons in the occurrence as alleged by the prosecution and the I.O. did not get anything worth to be seized at the place of occurrence that by itself would be fatal for prosecution. He has, in fact, categorically denied to have found any spot of blood at the P.O. nor has he found any blood stained clothe. It has to be also kept in mind that PWs-4, 5, and 6 have categorically stated about them but surprisingly nothing was found and seized by the police.
34. The submission of the learned counsel for the State that the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 29 failure and laches on the part of I.O. in seizing the blood or blood soaked clothe should not affect the veracity of the case of the prosecution cannot be accepted for the simple reason that if the police officer in fact having been given belated information at 8:30 A.M. of the occurrence taking place at 7:00 P.M. in the night and the and the informant himself had caused delay the prosecution cannot get advantage at both the ends. This aspect of the matter gets also clarified in the evidence of the I.O. admitting that at 8:30 A.M. when FIR was being recorded by PW-9, another Police Officer, he was not present. He also has, to a question in his cross-examination had admitted that he had recorded statement of the injured persons at the police station itself as soon as the case was endorsed to him by PW-9. The obvious answer will be because the prosecution itself started belatedly only in the next morning to get the case lodged after meeting of the minds by which time the vital material findings at the place of occurrence was allowed to disappear.
35. It is true that the investigation of this case has not been conducted in a proper manner. It is surprising that PW-9 immediately after recording the F.I.R. of the informant (PW-6) at the Police Station had handed over the investigation to another Police Officer PW-10 who thereafter is said to have recorded further statement of the informant and had sent them to the hospital for examination of the injuries as also had recorded the statement of injured witnesses as also PW-4 present in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 30 Police Station, whereafter he had proceeded to the place of occurrence with PW-6 and reached there at 12 noon. There is, however, nothing to show that PW-10 had kept track of the injured witnesses inasmuch as according to him PW-6 having six injuries on his person had accompanied him to the place of occurrence, whereas PW-5 also claims to have immediately come back to the hospital from the place of occurrence at the time of inspection of the place of occurrence. The Investigating Officer had to seize at least blood stained clothes of Shankar and also of other injured witnesses but he did not do so. He has also not taken care of examining and recording the statement of any other person at the place of occurrence save and except PW-2 and PW-3, who were named as a witness in the F.I.R. Admittedly the house of the informant was located amidst a number of houses but he has made no attempt to record statement of any of the neighbouring witness even when according to PW-4 at least 10-12 persons had come at the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. The question, however, would be that if the investigation was not conducted in a proper manner and the I.O. was virtually in league with the prosecution party in concocting and recording antedated statement of Shankar (the deceased) in form of Dying Declaration at a point of time when he was being actually examined by the doctor, can its benefit be given to the prosecution merely because defence had not put these questions to the Investigating Officer or to other witnesses?
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 31
36. In the considered opinion of this Court the onus to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt lies on a prosecution but when the prosecution itself comes out with belated version on the basis of a delayed First Information Report recorded after 13½ hours of the occurrence and it also gives a totally different version to the occurrence not supported by the medical evidence and the place and manner of occurrence as suggested by the prosecution is not established, the adverse inference has to be drawn only against the prosecution and not against the defence.
37. As noted above, prosecution party had four persons receiving injuries in the night and all four are said to have bleeding injuries on their persons as found by the Doctor PW-8 in their medical injury reports. The manner in which the timing of examination of the injuries by the Doctor has been recorded and the nature of the injures were found by him, would itself suggest that the information given to the police station was quite belated and a ploy was in fact developed to take the police into collusion for inventing the whole story of the assault by the accused persons.
38. In such a situation, this Court having regard to the evidence on record finds it only unsafe to convict these appellants as the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. Thus in the light of my aforementioned findings based on full consideration of the materials on record, I would hold that the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained and accordingly the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 32 impugned judgment is set aside. The appellants who are already on bail shall stand discharged of their liability of bail bonds.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) As per A.K. Trivedi J, To utmost regard to my learned brother, I am sorry to disagree with the finding so recorded by learned brother.
39. From the nature of evidence placed by the prosecution during trial, appears to be of two kinds. The first one happens to be that of the injured including Shankar (since deceased) and the second happens to be that of those persons who have their presence at the place of occurrence where they arrived after hearing alarm and have witnessed the occurrence. Presence of those persons as an eyewitness to occurrence is itself incorporated in the Fardbeyan. Apart from this, the presence of statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of one of the injured Shankar is also there which, after his death, has been admitted in accordance with Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (Ext-5).
40. In the aforesaid background, the place of occurrence has also to be seen whether it would justify the assault over injured including deceased as per prosecution version as well as arrival of other witnesses after hearing alarm at the P.O.. Not only this, the injury report has also to be taken note of. It has further to be assessed in a manner to search out Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 33 genuineness as well as veracity in the version of the witnesses. For that purpose, I would not go in detail by discussing the evidence at the cost of the repetition because of fact that same have properly been wallowed by my learned brother save and except where it looks necessary.
41. There is no controversy after having Ext-2 series, i.e., injury report of four injured which speak about sustaining of injuries by the injured. For better appreciation, the injury report of all the injured including deceased is incorporated herein below who were examined on 27.04.86 at Barachatti P.S at different time.
Injuries on the person of informant, Govind Singh Bhokta who was examined on 27.04.86 at 9:15 A.M. are:-
(i). Lacerated wound 1 x ¼ x skin deep on-right hand dorsal (ii) Bruises 3" x 1 ½" left hand dorsal surface (iii) Abrasion 1" x ½" left hand dorsal. (iv) Bruise 2 ½" x 1 1/2" on left forearm. (v) Lacerated wound 1 1/2" x ¼" skin deep near right eye brow (vi) Bruise 4" x 1" on back on left scapular region (vii) Bruise 3" x1"- on back on right scapular region.
All the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and the age of injuries were estimated within 24 hours from the time of examination.
On the person of Chhatiya Devi, who was examined on same day at 9:30 A.M., the injuries were (i) Bruise 3" x 2" on right thigh near knee
(ii) bruise 2 ½ x 1" on left shoulder. Injuries were simple, caused by hard Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 34 and blunt substance within 24 hours of the examination.
Injuries on the person of Bansi Bhuiyan (PW-1) examined on the same day at 9:45 A.M. were:- (i) Lacerated wound 1 ½" x ½" skin deep on anterior part of head. (ii) Bruises 4" x 1" on right shoulder (iii) Bruises 4½" x 1 ½" - on back of right scapular region (iv) Bruise 2 ½"x1" on waist, right side (v) Bruise 2 ¼" x 1" on left arm near elbow. All the injuries were simple and caused by hard and blunt weapon within 24 hours of the examination.
And the injury report relating to injured Shankar (since deceased) examined on the same date at 9:00 A.M. is as follows:-
1. Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x 1/3" on head-front region.
2. Incised wound 2" x ½" x 1/3" on head right posterior part
3. Incised wound 1 ½" x ½" x 1" on head- left posterior part
4. Abrasion 1 ½" x 1" on right shoulder
5. Abrasion 2" x ½" on chest both sides
6. Bruises 5" x 1" on back. All injuries were simple except injuries 1 to 3 caused by sharp cutting weapon and 4 to 6 by hard and blunt substance. Age of injuries within 24 hours from the time of examination.
42. Now coming to the genuineness of injuries, while PW-8 the Doctor who had examined the injured during cross-examination he had properly explained the injuries sustained by the deceased as well as injured.
At para-11, the Doctor had specifically disclosed that injury no.1 to 3 on Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 35 Shankar may be one and by the same weapon or by two different sharp cutting weapon. The Doctor denied the suggestion given by the defence that it is not a fact that edge of Gadasa is sharper than Tangi. Further, he volunteered that both will be equally sharp. So the presence of three incised injury over the person of Shankar is itself explained by the Doctor. There has not been any cross-examination to belie the injuries sustained by other injured save and except that those injuries could also be caused on fall. Hence presence of injuries is not at all challenged in its true sense at the hands of accused persons.
43. PW-7 happens to be the Doctor who had conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased on 02.05.1986 at 10:50 A.M. and found the following ante mortem injuries:-
1. Stitched wound over Rt parietal region of skull of size 1" in length. 2. Stitched wound over Lt parietal region of skull of size 2" in length. 3. Stitched wound over frontal region of skull of size 2" in length.
On dissection extradural blood clots were found in Rt side of brain. 4. Healed abrasion over Rt and Lt shoulder joint each of size 1" x ½". 5. Healed abrasion over Rt and Lt temporal region of skull each of size 1" x ½".
Above mentioned injuries were found to be ante-mortem in nature out of which injury no.1 was found to be grievous and rest was simple. In the opinion of doctor cause of death was coma and compression Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 36 due to injury no.1. Time elapsed since death was within 24 hours of time of P.M. Regarding injury no.4 & 5, it was opined to have caused by hard and blunt substance while for remaining injuries, treating surgeon was to be advised.
44. After conjoint reading of evidence of P.W. 7 and 8, it is evident that the deceased had sustained injuries not only by sharp cutting weapon but also by hard and blunt substance and that happens to be the version of the prosecution. In like wise manner the prosecution version is with regard to injuries caused to injured. How far it is found to be consistent with the prosecution version, that has to be seen from the analytical approach of the evidence of the ocular evidence in connection with medical evidence and the same has to be taken through the Fardbeyan. In Fardbeyan, there happens to be specific disclosure that Rameshwar had inflicted Gadasa blow over Shankar on account of which he had sustained injury and fell down. Ramchandra had given Bhala blow which was prevented by him (informant) as a result of which he (informant) sustained injuries over his hand and on his head. Rest of the persons had assaulted with Lathi. Occurrence is said to be at his (informant‟s) Darwaza where the informant PW-6 his Bhaujaai PW-5 (wife of deceased) and PW-1 Bansi was present along with Shankar (deceased).
45. PW-5 was not cross-examined on behalf of defence over Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 37 antecedent of deceased. After going through whole cross-examination, it is evident that defence had failed to cross-examine her on the point of manner of occurrence save and except whatever there has been under para-10 of her cross-examination whereunder she had disclosed that when she along with her Dewar and Bansi tried to save her husband, the accused persons indiscriminately assaulted them. She was not even cross-examined by the defence with regard to assault made over person of her husband. The portion or the fact which has not been challenged by the accused remained unshaken. By not challenging the manner of occurrence at least with regard to assault of Shankar is suggestive of the fact that this theme happens to be out of controversy.
46. PW-6 happens to be the informant. Admittedly, when his examination in chief has been taken into consideration, some sort of exaggeration is there to the extent of attracting Khirodhar to be another assailant over the person of Shankar by means of Tangi. Save and except that part, there happens to be no other form of embellishment. Surprisingly enough, the defence had not drew attention to this witness over the aforesaid development. There is settled principle of law that when any part/ development has not been confronted with the maker of the document, that part will not be taken and used and for that reference may have Utpal Das & Anr v. State of West Bengal 2010 Cr.L.J. 2867(Supreme Court) wherein at paragraph-13 it has been held:-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 38 "This one circumstance according to learned counsel for the appellants belies the evidence of the Prosecutrix as she went on making improvements. We find no merit in this submission for the simple reason that the contents of the first informant report were never put to the victim. It is needless to re-state that the First Information Report does not constitute substantive evidence. It can, however, only be used as a previous statement for the purposes of either corroborating its maker or for contradicting him and in such a case the previous statement cannot be used unless the attention of witness has first been drawn to those parts by which it is proposed to contradict the witness. In this case the attention of the witness (PW-
14) has not been drawn to those parts of the FIR which according to appellants are not in conformity with her evidence."
For want of non-confronting as well as failed to draw attention of the maker of the document escapes from foreclosure.
47. With regard to evidence of PW-1, Bansi it is evident that this PW stood firm during course of cross-examination over manner of occurrence where under he along with other injured had sustained injuries at the hands of accused. No inconsistency or infirmity is evident therefrom on the factum of assault. Not only this, he had fairly divulged the fact of relationship with the accused as well as some sort of differences persisting in between them. He had also disclosed the conduct of the deceased in impartial way. His conduct, apart from perceived by the Court as rustic, is also evident from his evidence as he happens to be honest in his conduct. Therefore, there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PW-1. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 39
48. After having parallel scrutiny of ocular as well as medical evidence. It is evident that the same is fully corroborated as well as being supported with each other. Moreso, in a decision reported in (2012) 5 SCC 724 (Kathi Bharat Vajsur vs. State of Gujarat, it has been observed in para 32 after discussing relevant law on this score:-
"When the medical evidence is in consonance with the principal part of the oral/ocular evidence thereby supporting the prosecution story, there is no question of ruling out the ocular evidence merely on the ground that there are some inconsistencies or contradiction in the oral evidence. We are not inclined to agree with Sri Dholakia on this count."
49. Enmity is a double edged sword. It might be a cause of false implication, simultaneously, it also to be a motive for commission of an offence. Where there happens to be some sort of evidence over animosity prevailing amongst the parties, witnesses, then in that event, the law requires close scrutiny of the evidence to find out whether the version given by the witnesses, the prosecution case appears to be acceptable. Coming to the facts of the case, it is evident that PW-1 has got same sort of grudge with the accused over partition as they happen to be own brother and nephew but so far other injured witnesses are concerned, it happens to be only a trivial issue on account of their ignorance by the villagers at the instance of deceased.
50. With regard to acceptance of evidence of the injured Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 40 witnesses, times without number it has been held that the evidence of injured witnesses should not be discarded in mechanical way. It is to be presumed that an injured witness will not let the real culprit escape and implicate another person who had nothing to do with the incident, unless it is shown that the evidence suffers from glaring infirmities, the Court will not be justified in discarding the evidence of such a witness.
51. In the case of Brahm Swaroop & Anr. v. State of U.P. reported in 2011 Cr.L.J. 306 (Supreme Court) the Hon‟ble Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the status of the witnesses who were closely related to the deceased as well as having been injured during course of occurrence and explained the situation under paragraphs-21 and 22 which is as follows:-
21. Merely because the witnesses were closely related to the deceased persons, their testimonies cannot be discarded. Their relationship to one of the parties is not a factor that effects the credibility of a witness, moreso, a relation would not conceal the actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. A party has to lay down a factual foundation and prove by leading impeccable evidence in respect of its false implication.
However, in such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse the evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible evidence. (Vide: Dalip Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab, AIR 1953 SC 364; Masalti v.
State of U.P., AIR 1965 SC 202; Lehna v. State of Haryana, (2002) 3 SCC 76; and Rizan & Anr, v. State of Chhattisgarh through the Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (2003) 2 SCC 661); (AIR 2003 SC 976).
Injured witnesses Attar Singh (PW.1) has been examined, his testimony cannot be discarded, as his presence on the spot cannot be doubted, particularly, in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 41 view of the fact that immediately after lodging of FIR, the injured witness had been medically examined without any loss of time on the same day. The injure witness had been put through a grueling cross-examination but nothing can be elicited to discredit his testimony.
22. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone. "Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness". (Vide: State of U.P. v. Kishan Chand & Ors., (2004) 7 SCC 629: (AIR 2004 SC 4671); Krishan & Ors v. State of Haryana, (2006) 12 SCC 459; Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2008) 8 SCC 270: (AIR 2008 SC 3259); Jarnail Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 ; (AIR 2010 SC 3699); Vishnu & Ors.
v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477: (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2374); Anna Reddy Sambasiva Reddy & Ors. v.
State of Andhara Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 2661; and Balraje @ Trimbak v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC
673): (2010 Cr.L.J. 3443 (SC).
52. With regard to mode of appreciation of evidence the Hon‟ble Apex Court in a decision in the case of Atmaram & Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2012) 5 SCC 738 at paragraph-13 had held:-
"13. It is a settled cannon of criminal jurisprudence that every statement of the witness must be examined in its entirety and the court may not rely or reject the entire statement of a witness merely by reading one sentence from the deposition in isolation and out of context."
53. Taking into account the aforesaid principle laid down by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 42 the Hon‟ble Apex Court as referred above in consonance with the evidence of Doctor, the presence of injury over the person of injured witnesses is found to be there and for that these three prosecution witnesses have categorically explained the event wherein they had sustained injuries at the hands of accused persons. Here, I would like to mention that right from PW-1 to PW-6 the presence of Khirodhar as one of the assailant has fully been corroborated by the witnesses save and except having his absence as an assailant by an axe over the person of Shankar in the Fardbeyan though presence is there and for that attention of PW-6, the informant had not been drawn. So far remaining PWs are concerned there happens to be no development on this score.
54. Most surprising feature coming out from the cross- examination of injured witnesses is over the fact that the defence could not put challenge to injuries sustained by them nor they tried to explicit from them how they sustained injuries. This conduct of defence had taken into consideration by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. reported in (2011) 4 SCC 336 wherein at para 41 it has been held:-
"41. Undoubtedly, all the eyewitnesses including the injured witnesses are closely related to the deceased. Thus, in such a fact situation the law requires the court to examine their evidence with care and caution. Such close relatives and injured witnesses would definitely not shield the real culprits of the crime and name some body else because of enmity. The defence did not ask the injured witnesses as to how they received the injuries mentioned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 43 in the medical report (See Dinesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, Arjun Mahto v. State of Bihar and Akhtar v. State of Uttranchal)
55. Now, coming to the evidence of the remaining material PWs, as stated above their presence as an eyewitness has been in the Fardbeyan itself. During course of examination of these witnesses the Court had recorded the demeanour of the witnesses. How far, it is going to affect the credibility of the evidence of the witnesses is a different matter but by such remark one could safely infer that they happen to be a rustic, illiterate person coming from remote side having no occasion to face tenor of cross-examination. In the aforesaid background, when I proceed to scrutinize the evidence of PW-8, individually and independently, who was cross-examined in question and answer form. The relevant portion happens to be :
GHATNA ASTHAL PAR SABSE PAHLE TUM HI PAHUNCHNE WALE THE ?
UTTAR: JI NAHIN, PAHLE SE BANSI THA.
PRASHNA: BANSI KE ALAWE AUR KOI NAHIN THA ?
UTTAR : JI NAHIN.
56. Whether these questionnaires had erased the presence of family members. Whether this part is going to exclude presence of PW-5 and PW-6, for that his cross-examination has to be taken into Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 44 consideration in its right perspective. It denotes that the defence was only trying to know whether he was first to arrive at the place of occurrence (except the family members). This cross-examination is not going to include or exclude the other family members because of the fact that through aforesaid questionnaire, the status of other PW was to be ascertained in context of his presence at P.O. first of all. This question did not include and cannot include the family member as no cross examination was made on this score. His further cross-examination reveals:-
(Q) TUM JAB GHAR SE NIKAL KAR AYE TAB
SHANKAR GIRA HUA THA AUR KHOON BAH RAHA THA ?
(ANS.) JEE HAAN.
(Q) AUR MUDDALAH LOG CHARO TARAF SE BAITHE
AUR LATHI, TANGI SE MAR RAHE THE ?
(ANS.) JEE HAAN.
(Q) BANSHI KE ELAVE AUT KOI NAHI THA ?
(ANS.) JEE NAHI.
(Q) SHANKAR KO MUDDALAH LOG MARA AUR
BHAG GAYA AUR APNE NA KUCHH DEKHA ?
(ANS.) HAAN.
57. From the aforesaid evidence it is evident that the defence had not tried to cross-examine the other discloser made during Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 45 examination in-chief regarding assault over person of PW-1, PW-5 and PW-6. The aforesaid disclosure is not going to lean in favour of accused because of the fact that other parts have not stood tested under cross- examination and further taking into account the standard of the witness as perceived by the court with regard to assault over Shankar, deceased, the same happens to be fully satisfied.
58. PW-3, he again possesses the same status which compelled the Court to intervene under guise of Section 165 of the Evidence Act which the learned lower court had rightly did as the court is not expected to be silent spectator allowing the cause to be frustrated on account of indocile of the witness.
" MAAR-PEET HOTE MAIN NE DEKHA THA. MERA DARWAZA WAHIN PAR HAI"
Again Court had put question:- " MUDDALAY LOGON KE BHAG JANE KE BAAD TUM WAHAN PAHUNCHE THE ?
UTTAR- JI. NAHIN, MUDDALAY LOG THA TABHI MAIN PAHUNCHA THA.
And then another question was put by the defence in response thereof which categorically discloses that he had seen the occurrence.
59. PW-4 has rightly been held not to be an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW-9 is simply a formal in nature who had recorded Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 46 Fardbeyan, prepared injury report.
60. From the evidence on record it is evident that save and except minor variance in between the evidence of PWs, nothing material contradiction/inconsistencies have been found. In Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1999) a s a 525 at para 12 it has been held:-
"12. It is indeed necessary to note that one hardly comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain some exaggeration on embellishment. Sometimes those could be a deliberate attempt to offer embellishment and sometimes in their over anxiety they may give a slightly exaggerated account. The Court can shift the chaff from grain and find out the truth from the testimony of the witnesses. Total repulsion of the evidence is unnecessary. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. If this element is satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the stated evidence though not however in the absence of the same".
61. From the deposition of witnesses, it is evident that the learned lower court had recorded demeanour of witnesses (as permissible in accordance of Section 280 Cr.P.C.) as rustic, illiterate. While dealing with the evidence of such kind of witnesses the Hon‟ble Apex Court had made distinction during appreciation of evidence and for that reference may have 2010 Cr.L.J. 3889 (State of U.P. vs. Krishna Master & Ors.), relevant para-10:-
"The first and firm impression which one gathers on reading the testimony of this witness is that he is a rustic witness. A rustic witness, who is subjected to fatiguing, taxing and tiring cross-examination for days Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 47 together is bound to get confused and make some inconsistent statements. Some discrepancies are bound to take place if a witness is cross-examined at length for days together. Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a rustic witness who is subjected to grueling cross-examination should not be blown out of prosecution. To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to the accused who have perpetuated heinous crime. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole. The rustic wetness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative. Therefore, the court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness."
62. Now coming to the deficiency persisting in the case of the prosecution as argued and shown to be one of the major grounds for disbelieving prosecution version on the ground of persistence of basic infirmities in the prosecution case. I do not want to deprecate the conduct of prosecuting agency who swam with the prosecution as well as the manner whereunder investigation of the case was done but nodose are clearly perceived. Slackness on the part of the prosecuting agency is itself evident from the fact that the injury report was prepared by PW-9 and on the basis of that injury report, the injured were forwarded to hospital where Doctor had examined them and issued injury report (Ext-2 series) but the prosecution had failed to exhibit those injury report prepared by Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 48 PW-9 although on its back doctor had recorded his injury report and are an exhibit. On account of sulkiness of the prosecution agency have led a germane of a controversy for the present with regard to timing of examination of injured more particularly that of Shankar in consonance with timing of recording of statement of deceased under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Had it been properly conducted and explained through PW-9, then in that event there would not have such sight. However, the aforesaid controversy is not going to affect adversely on the prospect of prosecution case.
63. Now coming to the evidence of the PW-10, the I.O. less said is better. There happens to be consisting and consociate version of the prosecution witnesses that when the I.O. visited the place of occurrence , the informant PW-6 had shown the blood stained earth. Not only this, from his deposition, it is evident that he had sent the injured to hospital but at what time he had not disclosed. In para-2 of his examination in chief he has disclosed that he had visited the P.O. and inspected the same but who had pointed out the P.O. he had not mentioned. He had not properly identified the P.O. save and except deposing under para-2 " SAMBANDHIT CASE KA GHATNA ASTHAL WADI KE MITTI KHAPRE KA UTTAT RUKH KA MAKAN HAI. USI KE SATE PASHCHIM THORI SI KHULI ISTHIT HAI. Although right from Fardbeyan P.O. lies at the Darwaza of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 49 informant/ deceased.
64. So, the place of occurrence was ever visited by him and on this score if the evidence of PW-6 is gone through as per para-4, I.O. had seen blood at the place of occurrence. Apart from this, although under para-1 of the examination in chief PW-10 stood but during course of cross-examination at para-5, he had, on his own, disclosed that "GOBIND MRITAK KA BAYAN THANA PAR HI LIYA GAYA THA" and that happens to be reason behind that this witness was forced to recall and explain the situation. At para-8 he had disclosed that he had wrongly deposed like so. When that happens to be the conduct of I.O., it was nothing unusual at his end to incorporate timing of 9:00 A.M. at which hour statement of injured Shankar was recorded by him, who according to injury report appears to be being examined by PW-8. When the aforesaid timing has been gone through minutely, it is evident that the same has been mentioned in different pen and that is another circumstance to show that this PW found to be averse to prosecution.
65. Whether prosecution case would suffer from casualty on account of faulty investigation, the same has been subject to adjudication before the Hon‟ble Apex Court and in a decision Prithvi (Minor) v. Mam Raj and Ors reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 198. at paragraph 17, it has been held:-
"17. Assuming that there was faulty investigation by the investigating officer, it could hardly be a ground for rejection Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 50 of the testimony of Prithvi which had a ring of truth in it. We may recount here the observation of this Court in Allarakha K. Mansuri v. State of Gujarat, SCC at p. 64, para 8, that:
"The defects in the investigation holding it to be shaky and creating doubts also appears to be the result of the imaginative thought of the trial court. Otherwise also, defective investigation by itself cannot be made a ground for acquitting the accused."
66. In another decision reported in AIR 2000 SC 185 (State of Karnataka vs. Yarappa Reddy) it has been held:-
"Even if the investigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of the evidence must be scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise the criminal trial will plummet to the level of the investigating officers ruling the roost. ..... Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the Court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true, the Court is free to act on it albeit investigating officer‟s suspicious role in the case."
67. One more question appears to have surfaced over acceptance of statement of deceased recorded in accordance of Section 161 Cr.P.C. Ext-5. as dying declaration acknowledging the accused to be author of his injuries along with assault over person of other injured and if so, whether it was given by the deceased in fit mental condition free from all kinds of infirmities. To answer this question, again, I turn to the evidence of PW-8 the Doctor. True it is that in the injury report the condition of the patient Shankar has been incorporated as semi conscious, however the defence had not cross-examined the doctor on this score Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 51 whether Shankar was not in a fit mental condition to make any kind of statement. Not only this, PW-10 has been cross-examined on this score and he has categorically stated that Shankar was fully conscious at the time of making of statement. As per Butterworths Medical Dictionary, „semi conscious‟ has been defined „ a state of incomplete consciousness‟ That means say neither he happens to be in full consciousness nor appears to be unconscious. This stage appears to be intermediary state and therefore, it cannot be construed that the injured was completely unable to make statement. Because of the fact that the doctor was not at all confronted on this score, then in that event, one cannot ignore the same.
67. Now coming to acceptance of statement of deceased made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to be as dying declaration, it is suffice to say that the statement suggest sustaining of injuries at the hands of accused which was examined by PW-8 and the patient was then thereafter referred and during course of transit he succumbed. Evidence of PW-7 clearly interlinked injury no.1 to be cause of his death, and as such the said statement is acceptable in light of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act read with Section 162(2) of the Cr.P.C which had excluded the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the extent of its acceptance as dying declaration. The most important circumstance so visualizing on this score is that PW-10 had categorically stated in his examination in Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 52 chief that after having entrusted with investigation, he had recorded statement of injured as well as witness so present at the P.S. itself and then had sent the injured to hospital (para 1,4,8). He was cross-examined by the defence on this score at para-9 wherein he stated that he had recorded statement of Shankar at P.S. itself. At that very time he was full conscious and gave statement without any aid and assistance. At that very time all the injured were present which was but natural. This part of evidence further rules out the controversy over timing as raised. Furthermore, as observed in foregoing paragraph on bare perusal from naked eye the timing so affixed over Ext-5 happens to be in different ink and pen.
69. In a decision reported in 2010 Cr.L.J. 4721 (Mukeshbhai Gopalbhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat) after discussing the scope of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act read with Section 161, 162 (2) Cr.P.C. after making elaborate discussion under para 4, in para 5, it has been concluded as:-
Para-5:-" A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision when read with Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act would reveal that statement of a person recorded under Section 161 would be treated as dying declaration after his death"
70. Therefore, in its entirety the status of Ext-5 happens to be that of dying declaration and is legally maintainable. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 53
71. One more aspect remains over genuineness of the FIR. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on 26.04.86 and the FIR was lodged on next day i.e. on 27.04.86 at 8:30 A.M.. Hence, there happens to be delay of nearly 13 hours. Though there happens to be inconsistency amongst the witness over distance from P.O. to P.S. However, from Ext-3 it happens to be 8 K.M. It was night. Recording of FIR at 8:30 A.M. on 27.04.86 is suggestive of the fact that the injured along with witnesses must have proceeded from village at an early hours.
72. There happens to be conclusiveness on this score that FIR was registered at early hours on 27.04.86 as well as injured were also examined in the morning of 27.04.86 itself. FIR was seen by the learned Magistrate on 28.04.86. So, prima facie there happens to be some delay in lodging Fardbeyan, and whether on that score, prosecution case be brushed aside is the moot question to be answered.
73. PW-6 informant was not directly confronted on this score but from para-8 of his cross-examination, the matter appears to be fully explained:-
" THANE PAR DUSRE DIN SUBAH MEIN GAYA. THANA MERE GHAR SE KAREEB DERH MEEL HI THA. ASPATAL THANE KE BAGAL MEIN HI THA. PAKKI ROAD MERE GHAR SE KAREEB DERH MEEL HAI. RAT BHAR BHAI KO APNE GHAR PAR HI RAKHA. SUBAH BHAI KO KHATOLI PAR LE GAYE. RUPLAL Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 54 SINGH, BHOLA, BANDHU MUKHIA, NANKU MUKHIA THANA GAYE. RUPLAL DUSRE GAON KE HAIN.
74. In a decision reported in 2009 Cr.L.J. page 942 (Indra Pal Singh vs. State of U.P. with Jagat Singh vs. State of U.P.) at para -9 it has been held:-
"Para-9:- Learned Senior counsel for the appellants first submitted that there was considerable delay in lodging the FIR (Ex. Ka. 1) by PW-1, therefore, no reliance can be placed on such a document. On examination of the evidence, it is clearly established that the occurrence took place on 23.07.1980 at about 8:30 P.M. near village Patyora in which the accused allegedly fired gun shots at Jai Karan Singh and FIR of the occurrence was lodged at about 6:15 A.M. on the following morning at police station, Sumerpur which is situated at a distance of about 15 kms from the place of occurrence. The High Court observed in its order that no specific question was put to PW, Subedar Singh, the informant as to why he did not lodge FIR of the occurrence at police post Surauli which is quite near to village Patyora. On appraisal of the evidence of PW-1, we find that he has given explanation that due to fear from the accused and non availability of conveyance, he could not promptly go to the police station to lodge FIR of the occurrence. He stated that after the murder of Jai Karan Singh by the accused, he with the help of his co-villager took the dead body of his son from the place of occurrence to his house and since they were all wailing and grief stricken, he got the report of the occurrence scribed by his second son Shiv Karan Singh (PW-5) at about 3:00 A.M. on the following morning and then at about 4:00 A.M., he proceeded to the police station, Sumerpur and handed over the written report to the police official present there. In these circumstances, the explanation offered by PW-1, Subedar Singh of not lodging the FIR soon after the occurrence, in our view, was quite satisfactory and convincing and there was no deliberate delay on his part in reporting the crime to the police."
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 55
75. During course of hearing, it has rightly been pointed out by the learned Amicus Curiae with regard to the illegality comitted by the learned lower court since inception of the case while dealing with the case of Rajdeo Bhuiyan as well as Rameshwar Bhuiyan. During course of statement of these two appellants/convict Rajdeo had claimed his age as 12 years while the Court had estimated his age as 19. With regard to Ram Briksh, the Court had estimated his age to be 20 years while he claimed his age as 15 years. Recording of statement happens to be on 12 th July 1989. That means to say after an interval of three years from the date of occurrence. At that very time on account of presence of Bihar Children Act (since replaced by J.J. (C & P) Act), those two appear to be child within the definition of the said Act . Moreover, when the age of Rajdeo has been shown as 12 years in the judgment itself on the basis of his own estimation why the same has been negativated with regard to appellant Ram Briksh, is not explained by the learned lower court.
76. So far question over identification of the accused is concerned, there is hitch over it nor the defence insisted thereupon. Apart from the fact that in cross-examination of PW-6, para-6 it is found to be properly explained.
77. Thus, taking into account the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that prosecution has succeeded in proving its Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 56 case against the accused beyond doubt. Hence, Appeal is dismissed. Appellants are on bail. Hence, their bail bonds are cancelled and are directed to surrender before the learned court to serve out the sentences except two appellants Rajdeo and Rameshwar Bhuian as their case stood on different footing and so, no sentence of incarceration is being approved against them. However, as discussed & held in foregoing paragraph, the learned lower court is directed to proceed accordingly.
78. In the aforesaid background and in the background of the fact that at the relevant time Bihar Children Act 1982 was in application wherein as per Section 24, no joint trial of child was permissible along with other co-accused and further as per Section 22, no sentence of incarceration was permissible against the child. It was incumbent upon the learned lower court to decide the issue at first count and would have bifurcated the trial of child accused. However, the same has been by-passed. As per Section 7A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2000, the appellants are found to be fully safeguarded. Accordingly, learned lower court is directed to bifurcate the case of these two appellants/convict and will transmit the same to the Juvenile Justice Board for proceeding in accordance with law after having a prima facie finding over status of appellant.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.171 of 1990 dt.10-07-2012 57
79. In view of our aforesaid difference of opinion, let the records of this case be placed before Hon‟ble the Chief Justice for its being assigned to an appropriate Bench.
(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J) Patna High Court Dated the 10th of July 2012 Surendra/Perwez/NAFR