Patna High Court - Orders
Dadan Paswan @ Dadan Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 24 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.445 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2022 Thana- RAJPUR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. Sarita Devi Wo Shambhu Paswan R/o Village Nima, P.S Rajpur, District
Rohtas
2. Shintu Devi @ Sunita Devi W/o Rajesh Paswan R/o Village Nima, P.S
Rajpur, District Rohtas
3. Shyam Bihari Ram S/o Late Ram Raj Ram R/o Village Nima, P.S Rajpur,
District Rohtas
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent
======================================================
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 464 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-119 Year-2022 Thana- RAJPUR District- Rohtas
======================================================
1. DADAN PASWAN @ DADAN RAM SON OF LATE RAM RAJ PASWAN
RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - NIMA, POLICE STATION - RAJPUR,
DISTRICT - ROHTAS
2. MALTI DEVI WIFE OF DADAN RAM RESIDENT OF VILLAGE -
NIMA, POLICE STATION - RAJPUR, DISTRICT - ROHTAS
3. SUGRIV RAM SON OF LATE HEERALAL RAM RESIDENT OF
VILLAGE - NIMA, POLICE STATION - RAJPUR, DISTRICT - ROHTAS
... ... Appellants
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The State Of Bihar The Advocate General of Bihar
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 445 of 2024)
For the Appellants : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
(In CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 464 of 2024)
For the Appellants : Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Ms. Riya Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024
2/8
7 24-07-2024These appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction dated 15.03.2024 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2024 rendered by the learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 2-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram passed in C.I.S. No. 2417 of 2023 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (in short 'RI') for life and fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) each for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 149 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, they have to undergo simple imprisonment (in short 'SI') for six months each. Further, they are awarded sentence to undergo SI for two years for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 149 of the IPC. They are further awarded sentence to undergo SI for two years for the offences punishable under Sections 338 and 149 of the IPC and each of them is further Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 3/8 awarded sentence to undergo SI for two years for the offence punishable under Section 147 of the IPC. Further, they are awarded sentence to undergo SI for six months for the offence punishable under Sections 337 and 149 of the IPC and they are further awarded sentence to undergo SI for 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 37 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act and all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, learned Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 445 of 2024 and Mr. Raghunandan Kumar Singh assisted by Ms. Riya Singh, learned Advocates for the appellants and Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the Respondent-State in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 464 of 2024.
3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants would mainly submit that though the informant and other relatives of the informant and deceased are not the eye- witnesses to the occurrence in question, they were projected as eye-witnesses. It is submitted that there is delay of more Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 4/8 than thirteen hours in lodging the FIR and in fact written complaint was given by the informant to the police. Prior to that, the injured deceased was taken to the Government Hospital where no information was given with regard to the incident in question to the police. It is thereafter contended that as per the written complaint/FIR given by the informant, two brothers of the deceased also sustained injuries in the incident in question. However, the said two brothers were examined by the prosecution and from their deposition, it is revealed that in fact they did not sustain any injury in the incident in question.
4. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellants further submits that even as per the version of the informant given in the written complaint, appellants, namely, Shintu Devi, Sarita Devi and Malti Devi pelted stones and bricks, whereas accused Rajesh Paswan gave blow with iron rod on the head of the deceased. Learned Advocate, therefore, urged that the main allegations are levelled against Rajesh Paswan that he gave blow with iron rod on the head of the deceased. It is also submitted that out of six appellants, three appellants are lady accused and in fact all the family Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 5/8 members have been falsely implicated. It is also contended that the appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC.
5. Learned Advocate thereafter contended that the present appeals are of the year 2024 and the same are not likely to be heard in near future. It is, therefore, urged that the appellants be released on bail and the sentence imposed by the learned trial court be suspended.
6. On the other hand, learned APP for the Respondent-State has opposed the request made by learned Advocates for the appellants for grant of bail and submits that there are more than five eye-witnesses to the occurrence in question and they have fully supported the case of the prosecution. It is further submitted that doctor has also supported the version given by the eye-witnesses and, therefore, when the trial court has convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, they may not be released on bail.
7. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 6/8 having gone through the materials placed on record including the deposition of the prosecution witnesses supplied by the learned Advocates for the parties, it would emerge that written complaint was given by the informant after thirteen hours and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. It is also revealed that the injured was immediately taken to the Primary Health Centre and thereafter treatment was given at the said Centre. The injured was thereafter referred to Sadar Hospital, Sasaram for better treatment and during the course of treatment, the injured died. Thus, it appears that the injured was taken to the Government Hospital for necessary treatment. However, surprisingly, the FIR was lodged after thirteen hours. Prior to registration of FIR, the Inquest Report was prepared and postmortem on the dead body of the deceased was also conducted. It is further revealed that as per the version given by the informant in the written complaint, two brothers of the deceased have also sustained injuries in the incident in question. However, the said witnesses/ brothers of the deceased have deposed before the Court that only deceased sustained injury in the incident in question. Even, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 7/8 we have noticed major contradictions and inconsistencies in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses.
8. Even otherwise, main allegation is levelled against co-accused Rajesh Paswan who gave blow with iron rod on the head of the deceased and the said accused is not before us.
9. Out of the six appellants, three appellants are lady accused. We have verified the role attributed to the present appellants and we are of the view that appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC. Further, the present appeals are of the year 2024 and the same are not likely to be heard in near future.
10. Looking to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the case of the appellants deserves consideration.
11. Accordingly, appellants are ordered to be released on bail during pendency of the present appeal on executing bail bonds of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand) each and upon furnishing two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Exclusive Special Excise Court No. 2-cum-Additional District & Sessions Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.445 of 2024(7) dt.24-07-2024 8/8 Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram passed in C.I.S. No. 2417 of 2023 arising out of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 119 of 2022 and the sentence imposed by the trial court is suspended so far as these appellants are concerned.
12. It is clarified that the aforesaid observations are the tentative observations made by this Court while considering request of the appellants for grant of bail.
13. The appellants should co-operate in this court till disposal of the appeal.
14. The sentence shall remain suspended in the meanwhile. Realisation of fine shall remain stayed during the pendency of this appeal.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J) ( Ramesh Chand Malviya, J) GKS/-
U T