Patna High Court
Md. Badruddin & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 23 July, 2012
Author: Sheema Ali Khan
Bench: Sheema Ali Khan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.182 of 1999
===========================================================
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF
SENTENCE DATED 19.7.1999, PASSED BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL
SESSIONS JUDGE, MUNGER IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 205 OF 1990
ARISING OUT OF MOFFASIL P.S. CASE NO. 202 OF 1988.
===========================================================
1. Md. Badruddin, son of Md. Reazuddin.
2. Md. Haidar, son of Md. Moinuddin.
3. Md. Mustaque, son of late Chhedi.
4. Md. Sakir, son of Md. Kashim.
5. Md. Farooque, son of Md. Israfil.
6. Md. Sattar, son of Md. Israfil.
7. Md. Sohrab, son of Moinuddin.
All resident of village Bakarpur, P.S. Moffasil, District Munger.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
.... .... Respondent
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Md. Salauddin Khan, Advocate
Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 23-07-2012
S.A. Khan, J.This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.7.1999, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Case No. 205 of 1990. Out of the 12 accused persons, 7 have been convicted and 5 acquitted by the Trial Court judgment. The appellant Md. Mustaque and Md. Haidar have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, each of them have been further sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms 2 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 2 / 14 Act and 2 years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. The other appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case as stated by P.W. 6 Umaruddin is that on the date of occurrence i.e. 31.5.1988 at about 5.30 P.M. the accused persons came to talk to him regarding the arrangement of a band. It is said that the brother of the informant had married the niece of the accused-appellant Md. Khalique and Md. Miraj. The accused persons came to the house of the informant armed with guns and rifles. They began to demand the presence of Md. Miraj, Md. Khalique and Md. Suleman as they wanted to settle some scores. The informant and the others were present in the house went to the roof of the house to protect Md. Miraj and others, whereupon it is alleged that Md. Sakir ordered Md. Mustaque to fire, whereupon Haidar and Mustaque fired which injured Md. Miraj. The informant and others raised alarm that Md. Miraj has died which led the accused persons to leave the place of occurrence. It is also alleged that during the said occurrence Md. Jalil was injured by a Bhala by one of the accused persons.
3. The defence of the appellants is that on the date of occurrence Md. Jalil was assaulted which led to filing of a criminal case by Md. Jalil in which he has alleged that the occurrence took 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 3 / 14 place when Md. Jalil and others were attacked by the accused persons named in the First Information Report who incidentally are the witnesses in the present case. An explanation has been given that Md. Miraj got an injury, because while firing, the gun burst which led to injuries on his face and other places of his body, including his left forearm. The counter case has been proved by the appellant as Ext. B. The injury report has also been produced and proved as Ext. D. The charge sheet Ext. C of the said counter case has been numbered as Moffasil P.S. Case No. 206 of 1988, whereas the judgment in the counter case Exts. E and F by the High Court and the Trial Court had also been produced before the Trial Court. Out of the 9 witnesses examined in this case, P.W. 8 is the doctor and P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer of this case. P.W. 6 is the informant, the others claim to be eye witnesses to the occurrence.
4. I should begin with the evidence of P.W. 8 who examined Md. Miraj. The doctor has found lacerated wound on right side of face from angel of mandible to the chin bleeding profusely with laceration of cheek muscles, fracture of right side of mandible in small fragments, with several pieces missing, opening of the buckle cavity of mouth on right side. Apart from which there are three other injuries which are simple in nature being lacerated wounds on the face. Injury no. 5 is a lacerated wound on the left forearm from 4 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 4 / 14 middle third to 2" above wrist joint from medial to posterior „aspeer‟ with laceration of skin. Part of the skin was missing, muscles and tendons were lacerated in back area. There was fragmentation of left radius in that area with few chips missing which was bleeding profusely. "A lacerated wound distal fallings of right thumb on lateral aspect ½"x¼"x bone deep with fracture of distal fallings of bone with bleeding" apart from which the fingers of the bone have also been found to be lacerated.
5. Regarding the injuries, learned counsel for the appellants submits that it would not be possible by a rifle as no bullets were found, the wound of entry is not circular which would indicate that it was fired by a rifle and there is no sign of charring. It is submitted that the absence of the main ingredients of a rifle injury, would indicate that it is a case where the weapon burst, resulting in injuries on the face, hand and wrist, which support the defence, rather than the prosecution case. In this context, it would be proper to quote the evidence of the doctor.
"3. None of the injuries are circular. It was not in oval.
None of the injuries was either inverted or everted. All the above factors such as circular oval, inverted or everted would have been evidence (sic) that above injuries were gun shot injuries. I disagree that in absence of above factors the above injuries become doubtful 5 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 5 / 14 that they have been caused by gun shot. Lacerated wound may be caused by different weapon including fire arms. Lacerated wound is not always different from fire arm wound."
6. In this context the doctor was questioned regarding the nature of the injury which caused fracture of the mandible bone in the face. He has specifically replied "if the gun blasts and iron pieces of the gun is blown off and touches the place of injury no. I and in that case injury may be possible by iron pieces of the gun." The doctor goes to say that injury is also possible if the gun is blown due to blast. The doctor did not find any portion of the pellet or bullet lodged in the body of the injured.
7. The submission on behalf of the appellants is that not only has the doctor supported the possibility of the defence version of the injury but has further clarified that there is no indication of any pellet or bullet in the face or other parts of the body of the injured. Besides which it has also been submitted that the nature of the injuries 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 indicate that it could not have been because of firing by two rifles or gunshots, as the injuries were distributed over different parts of the body. It may be noted that injury nos. 2, 3 and 4 are on the face but injury no. 6 is fracture of the right thumb whereas injury no. 7 is fracture of the wrist. It is, therefore, indicated as per the defence version that the injuries took place due to gun blast rather 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 6 / 14 than because of firing on Md. Miraj. This Court finds that infact there is some doubt that the medical version of the occurrence does not tallies with the ocular evidence on two counts. Firstly, the nature of the injuries do not clearly indicate that a rifle was fired as alleged by the prosecution and secondly because of the fact that there is a specific allegation of two rifle shots being fired by the accused persons whereas injury nos. 6 and 7 could not have been possible as the range of the bullet causes single wound rather than a dispersed wound. Even if it is presumed that the injuries were caused by a gun, then in that case the injury would spread over the area where the main impact takes place rather than being distributed to various parts of the body as has been found in this particular case.
8. In this context, this Court will now examine the evidence of the witnesses. P.W. 1 has supported the prosecution version. He has named all the accused persons as mentioned in the First Information Report. He has also supported the case that Mustaq was the person who fired on Md. Miraj and that Md. Khalid gave the order. The genesis of the occurrence has been supported in the chief and in the cross-examination and actually this Court finds that there is no material to discard the ocular version of the prosecution case. There is a consistent evidence of all the witnesses supporting the prosecution version, therefore, this Court would deal now with the 7 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 7 / 14 discrepancies in the version of the witnesses rather than repeat the evidence which has already been discussed by the Trial Court. Regarding P.W. 1, counsel for the appellants refers specifically at paragraph 9 to submit that P.W. 1 is not aware of the facts of the case in as much he says that Jalil had lodged a counter case and further states that he does not know the reason why Jalil had lodged the case or what was the manner in which the occurrence took place vis-à-vis Jalil.
9. P.W. 2 Md. Farman has admitted that there is previous enmity between the parties although he denies that Suleman, Khalik and Sajjad had earlier faced cases in which they had gone to jail. This witness also states that he had given a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to the effect that Md. Jalil had received injury because of assault by a Bhala by Md. Farooque, one of the accused in the so called counter case.
10. P.W. 3 similarly admits that Md. Jalil had filed a case and that he had received injuries by a Bhala.
11. P.W. 4 also states that he is the brother of P.W. 5 and P.W. 2. He speaks about a previous enmity in which he was also made accused along with Khalik and Miraj which was lodged by Mansoor in which he was convicted, which indicates that he had previous enmity with the accused persons. He supports the genesis of 8 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 8 / 14 the occurrence in his cross-examination and states that the marriage of the niece of the informant took place finally on 15.12.1988.
12. P.W. 5 similarly supports the occurrence and there is nothing important in his cross-examination which may help the defence.
13. The important witnesses in this case are P.W. 6, the informant, the injured P.W. 7 Md. Miraj and the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer P.W. 10 has established the place of occurrence. He finds that there were holes on the wall of the roof and blood stains. He takes note of the fact that Badruddin and Jalil are neighbours of the informant. He admits at paragraph 19 that there is a counter case which is Moffasil P.S. Case No. 206 of 1988. This information was given to him by the accused persons. Regarding the evidence of the witnesses, the Investigating Officer says that Md. Khalid, P.W. 1 had not defined the weapons which were being carried by the appellants. He also states at paragraph 25 that P.W. 1 had not alleged any specific overt act against Mushtaq or Haidar and had also not given the genesis of the occurrence. At paragraph 26 the Investigating Officer says that P.W. 2 Md. Farman had stated that Mushtaq was armed with a gun whereas the prosecution case is that he was armed with a rifle. It is also stated that he did not make any specific allegation against Haidar. The Investigating Officer similarly 9 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 9 / 14 says that Irfan had also not given the statement regarding the role played by appellant Mushtaq and Haidar during the occurrence. Regarding the injured P.W. 7, Miraj, the Investigating Officer has stated that he had not examined him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure because he could not meet him. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that at least three of the so called witnesses had not assigned any role to Mushtaq and Haidar. It is, therefore, stated that the ocular evidence of these witnesses should be discarded by this Court and the statement made in Court is nothing but an improvement of their version of the prosecution case. Even if this Court is to consider the submission aforesaid, it cannot be said that Haidar and Mushtaq did not have specific role to play in the said occurrence, as infact, details are mentioned in the First Information Report and supported by P.W. 6 the informant and Md. Miraj, the injured.
14. The next witness is the informant P.W. 6 Md.
Umaruddin. This witness states that Md. Khalid, Md. Miraj, Md. Suleman and Mr. Irfan had come to the place of occurrence and talked about the wedding of his niece. Suleman‟s sister whose is the niece of Md. Khalid was to be married with the brother of this witness. It is said that they had come armed with bhala, rifle and gun. It is further alleged that they began to demand the presence of Md. Miraj and 10 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 10 / 14 others thereafter the occurrence took place. At paragraph 6 he states that he has filed this case on behalf of Miraj and that Jalil who were injured in the said occurrence by the informant had also filed a separate case in which this witness is an accused. He admits that the witnesses of the present case i.e. Md. Khalid, Suleman, Kamruddin and Miraj are accused. He has described the place of occurrence in some detail. He says that several villagers had gathered there when the occurrence had taken place but none of them had participated in the occurrence.
15. P.W. 7 is the injured Md. Miraj. He supports the entire prosecution case. In his cross-examination he admits that there is a counter case and that he could not be examined by the Investigating Officer because he was under treatment. According to this witness he had filed an affidavit before the Investigating Officer as well as the Chief Judicial Magistrate after six months stating that the Investigating Officer of this case had not examined him. According to this witness, the mob of persons had already opened fire before they reached the place of occurrence. He further states that he identified the accused persons for the first time when he reached the road in front of the house, all persons present went to the roof to protect themselves. According to this witness, three rounds were fired, one after the other. After which he fell to the ground. A 11 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 11 / 14 suggestion has been made to this witness that he received the injuries because his gun burst while he was firing from the roof which had led to the injuries in question which he denies.
16. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the evidence of P.W. 7 should be discarded on the ground that it is hit by Section 145 of the Evidence Act which reads as follows:
"145. Cross-examination as to previous statements in writing.- A witness may be cross-examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into writing, and relevant to matters in question, without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him."
17. The purpose of Section 145 of the Evidence Act is to call the attention of the witness, who has given a previous statement or has filed a written affidavit so that the witness can either support or deny such statement, and he/she may be cross-examined with respect to those statements. Referring to a judgment passed in the case of Maga Ram Rajak & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar [1985 ECr.C. 445 (Pat)], learned counsel for the appellants submits that this court has held that if a witness is not examined under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure his evidence should be completely discarded. Contrary to the aforesaid decision is a decision of this Court passed in 12 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 12 / 14 the case of Narmadeshwar Pradhan Vs. The State of Bihar [1998 (3) PLJR 739) which holds that the failure on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statement of an important witness cannot be ground for discarding his evidence, as it was the duty of the Investigating Officer to record the statement and if he has failed to perform his duty the statement cannot be rejected on such technical ground. At the most counsel for the appellants may argue that some prejudice may be caused to him as the defence did not have an opportunity to test his version of the occurrence at the time when it took place. This Court finds that in this particular case non- examination of an important witness such as the injured by the Investigating Officer shows his careless attitude and failure on his part to fulfill his duties in conducting a fair investigation. The defence had the opportunity to test truthfulness of this witness vis-à-vis the statement given by the informant and other witnesses and infact the defence has cross-examined the injured in some detail and thus this Court finds that the evidence of P.W. 7 cannot be rejected "on the aforesaid ground".
18. After discussing the evidence of the 9 witnesses examined in this case, specifically the doctor‟s report regarding the injury and the manner in which it had taken place this Court comes to a conclusion that there is some discrepancy in the ocular evidence and 13 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 13 / 14 the medical evidence. The ocular evidence speaks of two fire arm injuries whereas the doctor‟s evidence would suggest that the injuries were caused because of at least three shots being fired by the accused persons. This aspect of the matter is not supported by the informant or other witnesses in this case. There appears to be a counter version which explains injury received by Md. Miraj which has been partly found acceptable by the doctor. Under the aforesaid circumstances when the doctor‟s opinion tallies with the explanation given in the counter case this Court cannot really determine whether the injury was incurred in the manner alleged. This Court also finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove the weapon which was used, in view of the nature of the injury, which indicates that it could not have been by means of a rifle. Thus, there appears to be a certain element of uncertainty regarding the cause of injury. However, since the occurrence is virtually admitted, the Court has to consider the evidence of the doctor in his chief, and the fact, that he denies that the injury found by him was because of the gun blasting in the hands of Md. Miraj this court would modify the sentence to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
19. The last argument made on behalf of the appellants is that all the persons involved in this case i.e. the accused and the informant are admittedly related to each other and the occurrence had 14 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.182 of 1999 dt.23-07-2012 14 / 14 taken place as far back as in the year 1988. It is submitted that the appellants have been facing the stress of prosecuting this case for the past 24 years which is sufficient punishment for them.
20. This Court, therefore, dismisses the appeal with the modification of the sentence as period already undergone with a further direction that the appellant Md. Mushtaq and Haidar should pay a sum of Rs. 7,000/- each to Md. Miraj. The other appellants are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 500/- each to Md. Miraj. The amount of fine should be deposited by the appellants in the Trial Court within a period of four months. The Trial Court will ensure that the amount of fine is given to Md. Miraj or his legal heir (if Md. Miraj is not alive). In case of failure to deposit the amount of fine before the Trial Court, within a period of four months from today, Md. Mushtaq and Md. Haidar would have to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and if the other appellants fail to deposit the amount of fine within a period of four months, they would have to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. On payment of fine, the appellants would be discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds furnished earlier in this case.
(Sheema Ali Khan, J.) Sanjay/-