Patna High Court
Jagdish Prasad & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 11 September, 2014
Author: Navaniti Prasad Singh
Bench: Navaniti Prasad Singh, Jitendra Mohan Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.348 of 1992
===========================================================
1. JAGDISH PRASAD
2. UMESHWAR PRASAD @ UMESH PRASAD
BOTH SONS OF LATE NAWAL KISHORE SINGH
3. SATYDEO SINGH SON OF LATE DEODHARI SINGH
ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GOKHULPUR, P.S.- CHANDI,
DISTRICT- NALANDA
4. RAM SWAROOP SINGH SON OF LATE RAGHUNANDAN SINGH
5. KAPIL SINGH SON OF LATE LAXMI SINGH
BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- MAHANAN CHAK, P.S.- CHANDI,
DISTRICT- NALANDA........................................... .... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR................................................ RESPONDENT
WITH
===========================================================
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 392 of 1992
===========================================================
1. MAHESHWAR SINGH
2. KAMESHWAR SINGH
3. YUGESHWAR SINGH
ALL SONS OF LATE NAWAL KISHORE SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-
GOKHULPUR, P.S.- CHANDI, DISTRICT- NALANDA..... APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF BIHAR.............................. ................. RESPONDENT
===========================================================
Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
8.9.1992 and 9.9.1992 passed by Shri Surendra Kumar Sinha, 2nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial
No. 25 of 1980
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 348 of 1992) (In CR. APP (DB) No. 392 of 1992)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. B.P. Pandey, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Raj Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Mishra, APP
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)
Date: 11-09-2014
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 2
When these appeals were taken up, Shri B. P.
Pandey, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of two
appeals pressed I.A. (Cr.) No. 1865 of 2014 which has been filed
in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 348 of 1992, placing on record that
appellant no. 2 Umeshwar Prasad @ Umesh Prasad, appellant
no. 3 Satydeo Singh and appellant no. 4 Ram Swaroop Singh of
this appeal have died during the pendency of the appeal.
2. Considering the matter, the appeal in relation to
the aforesaid appellants stands abated.
3. Heard Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel
appearing in support of two appeals and Shri Ajay Mishra,
learned A.P.P.
4. The two appeals arise from the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 8.9.1992 and 9.9.1992
respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Nalanda at Biharsharif in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1980 whereby
all the 8 appellants have been found guilty of offence punishable
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27
of the Arms Act. They have been accordingly, sentenced to life
imprisonment with no separate sentence under the Arms Act.
5. It may be noted that the appellant Maheshwar
Singh was charged separately under Section 302 Indian Penal
Code. The others including Maheshwar Singh was also charged
under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 3
Jugeshwar Singh, Kameshwwar Singh, Maheshwar Singh, Kapil
Singh and Ramswaroop Singh @ Kankar were charged under
Section 27 of the Arms Act. Maheshwar Singh was acquitted in
respect of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Before proceeding further we would like to note
the manner in which the court framed charge
" That you on the night intervening 15th/16th
day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur, P.S.-
Chandi, District-Nalanda did commit murder by
intentionally causing death of Jamuna Singh and
thereby committed an offence punishable under
Section302 of the Indian Penal Code "
"That you on the night intervening 15th/16th
day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur P.S. Chandi,
District- Nalanda committed murder of Jamuna
Singh in furtherance of common intention of you all
and thereby committed an offence punishable
under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code."
7. We have noted this only to point out that this
is not how charge or charges are framed. Chapter 17 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure deals with charge. If we go through
the provisions of Sections 211 to 214 of the Cr.P.C., we would
find that the charge as framed, in the present case, is not in
accordance with law but in view of provisions of Section 215 of
the Cr.P.C. and in view of the fact that the defence has not
pleaded any prejudice, it did not affect the result of the trial.
However, we would only wish to place on record that charge is a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 4
notice to the accused of the accusation, he has to defend. It
must contain facts constituting the offence and the manner in
which those facts arise and which facts are to be proved by the
prosecution. Merely stating that "That you on the night
intervening 15th/16th day of June, 1979 at village Gokhulpur,
P.S.- Chandi, District-Nalanda did commit murder by
intentionally causing death of Jamuna Singh and thereby
committed an offence punishable under Section302 of the
Indian Penal Code" is an apology for a charge. There is no
notice to the accused with regard to the place, the time and the
manner in which the offence was committed. Merely stating
murder is merely stating the inference without the facts which
has no meaning.
8. In the present case, we may note, if the court
had taken this trouble, then, it would have immediately found
that no charge under Section 302 Indian Penal Code at all could
have been framed against Maheshwar Singh because as per
prosecution's own version, Maheshwar Singh had not even
touched the deceased in any manner nor he had committed any
overt act in any manner. What is the importance of framing of
charge? It is not a mere formality. It is not a triviality but it is a
reality which the court must realize. We say no more.
9. The prosecution case is based upon an alleged
fard-beyan of Jamuna Singh who later, after five days, died. It
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 5
is recorded by Awadhesh Kumar Singh, the investigating officer,
who is PW 6. It is recorded at 2.45 AM on 16.6.1979 at the
house of the deceased at village Gokhulpur, P.S.- Chandi,
District- Nalanda. In the fard-beyan, so recorded, it is alleged
that while the informant Jamuna Singh, his wife, his two sons,
his daughter-in-law were sleeping in their house, Jamuna Singh
was sleeping near the well on a cot, at about 1.00 AM of
16.6.1979, four persons namely, Kishori Singh and his three sons Maheshwar Singh, Jugeshwar Singh and Kameshwar Singh along with 25-30 unknown people came and surrounded the informant. Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh, then, assaulted with lahti repeatedly upon the right hand of the informant virtually severing the right hand from the elbow. Others, some of whom were carrying arms, indiscriminately started firing in the air. Other family members reached. The accused persons, then, retreated. The motive was because of land dispute with Nawal Kioshore Singh @ Kishori Singh who lived in the neighbourhood and had agricultural land adjacent to the informant. This fard-beyan was recorded at 2.45 AM and on basis thereof the formal FIR was registered at 5.00 AM. The Police Station Chandi is near about one kilometer from the place of occurrence and the FIR having been registered at 5.00 AM on 16.6.1979, then, alleged to have been sent to the court on 17.6.1979. It is received in the court on 18.6.1979. Pursuant to Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 6 the case being registered, investigation was taken up. In the mean time Jamuna Singh being grievously hurt was taken to State Dispensary, Chandi when he was examined by the doctor. Injury report (Ext. 10) was prepared and allegedly, he was referred to Patna Medical College Hospital where allegedly, in course of treatment, on 21.6.1979, he died. The inquest report (Ext. 4) was, then, prepared at the PMCH. Thereafter, the body was sent for post mortem examination and the post mortem report is Ext. 9. After investigation, the Police submitted chargesheet but before the trial began, Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh died. The remaining 8 persons were accordingly, charged as noted above. They pleaded not guilty. They were tried and accordingly convicted.
10. Shri B. P.Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, in support of appeals, submits that the appellants have been wrongly convicted. There is no material for their conviction. He submits that the prosecution case is full of holes and unexplained situation inasmuch as whether the appellants were at all responsible for the death of Jamuna Singh has not been proved or established by the prosecution. We will come to these aspects in due course.
11. First, the evidence of PW 1 Sidheshwar Thakur, who is a seizure list witness in respect of seizure of blood stained mud. He does not support the seizure and is Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 7 declared hostile. PW 2 is Sonu Mali who is seizure list witness with regard to two empty cartridges seized from the place of occurrence but he also does not support the seizure and is declared hostile. PWs 3 and 4 are Prabhat Kumar and Ram Bilash Singh who are alleged to be the eye witnesses. They are sons of Jamuna Singh the victim. PW 5 is Bel Patri Devi the wife of the victim. She is merely tendered. PW 6 Awadhesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer. PWs 7 and 8 Yasbant Poddar and Ashutosh Kumar Shrivastava are the officers of the Forensic Science Laboratory who have been brought to prove the use of the rifle and blood stained mud. PW 9 Anandi Prasad is a compounder of a doctor at Biharsharif who has been brought in to prove post mortem report as was prepared at PMCH and the injury report that was prepared at State Dispensary, Chandi. Again, at this stage, we would like to point out that the trial court forgot that as to who is a competent witness. Who is competent to prove what facts? These are under the control and domain of the trial court. No Tom, Dick and Harry can get up to prove any document and get it admitted to evidence. Here Anandi Prasad (PW9) is merely a compounder. He was not even a government servant. He was a private compounder to the Deputy Superintendent of Biharsharif Hospital and he was not at all competent to depose as a witness to prove the post mortem report prepared at Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 8 Patna Medical College Hospital or the injury report prepared at State Dispensary, Chandi. The Trial court did not apply its mind. These are "Sankatmochan Witnesses" impermissible in law. Technically, the documents, produced and proved through him, have been wrongly marked as exhibits. They cannot be admitted to be validly proved as per the procedure prescribed under the Evidence Act. A document can only be proved and admitted in evidence by the person who is the author thereof. If, for any valid reason, the author is not available, then, at secondary stage, a person who is familiar with the document or has seen the document being prepared or is familiar with the hand writing of the author of the document, having been worked with him or having known to him can only prove the contents of the document or the document itself. What the trial court did, it permits a private compounder to come and prove the document. If this practice is allowed, then, we would be burying the Evidence Act. Anyone can come and prove any document, every thing and any fact. That is not the law. Technically both the injury report and the post mortem report cannot said to have been duly proved and those cannot be looked into. However, on this technicality, we will not shut out these two documents from consideration because Mr. B. P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel did not press for the same. Both of them annure to the advantage of the defence. Last Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 9 witness is Modan Prasad PW 10. He is the in-charge of the Malkhana where the rifle which was allegedly used and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory was kept on return from the FSL. He has deposed that rifle is not traceable in the Malkhana. It was, then, not brought as a material exhibit before the court. We may also note for the sake of records that the Investigating Officer (PW 6) in his deposition has admitted that upon requisition Nawal Kishore Singh had produced his rifle wrapped in cloth and sealed. He had taken the seal with him. No production list was prepared. We will deal with this aspect at appropriate stage.
12. Beginning with the two eye witnesses, the sons of the victim, i.e. PWs 3 and 4. PW 3 is Prabhat Kumar. He, in his chief, states that he along with his family members including his father and mother were sleeping in the house. The father was sleeping under a Mango tree. He further states that on hearing gun shot sounds coming from the outside, he and other family members rushed out. He saw four persons, named in the FIR, and several others surrounding his father who was lying on a cot. He stood there and watched Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh mercilessly assaulting his father by repeated blows about 10 in number with lathi at his right hand. The miscreants, then, went away. He, then, states that he went to the Police Station, informed the Officer In-charge about the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 10 occurrence and disclosed the names of the persons involved. Then, he accompanies the Police Officer back to the place of occurrence which is only one kilometer away. When he had left for the police station, his father was unconscious, his right hand virtually having severed but when he came back, he saw his father was conscious and not in pain. He (father) made statement which was recorded but his (PW 3) statement was not thereafter, recorded by the Police for the next two days. It is only two days after the incident that Police interrogated and recorded his statement. In the cross-examination, he admits that he and other family members were neither put to fear nor threatened or beaten. He further states, in his cross- examination, that there was no litigation between his family and the miscreants. There is a suggestion given to him that the incident had never taken place in the manner in which he alleged and that he was also not even present in the village at the time of incident rather he had come in the village two days later. He denied it.
13. Now, we come to the evidence of PW 4 Ram Bilash Singh, who is other son of the victim and is supposed to be present at the place of occurrence. He names 9 persons, having seen them after coming out of the house on hearing gunshot. He specifically states that Kishori Singh repeatedly gave lathi blows on the right hand of his father which virtually Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 11 severed his hand. He, then, states that his brother Prabhat Kumar (PW 3), went to the Police Station and called the Police to the place of occurrence whereafter, the Police recorded the statement of his father who died during course of treatment. In his cross-examination, he admits that 5 of the persons named were sons of Nawal Kishore Singh @ Kishori Singh. He admits that there had been land dispute between the families and in 1976, there had been an order by the Court. What is of more important is that PW 4 states that his brother PW 3 had gone to the Police Station and had lodged the FIR also naming persons therein at the Police Station. This is of some importance because when we come to the deposition of the investigating officer, PW 6, he denies having received any information of the incident till he came to the place of occurrence. The first FIR, if any, as lodged, has been obviously suppressed by the prosecution. This witness admits that though the accused persons were in a position to shoot and kill everybody, they had not even threatened anyone nor did this witness feel scared. He states that his uncle, the brother of the victim, namely, Rajendra Singh who stays at Patna and is doing the necessary pairvy in this case. He admits that the miscreants did not even abuse other persons. He is asked about his statement made before the Police for the purpose of contradictions.
14. We, then, consider the evidence of PW 6 Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 12 Awadh Kishore Singh, the Investigating Officer. The first thing we note is that in the very opening of his examination in chief, he states that he was asked by the officer incharge to go to the place of occurrence. He accordingly, made a Sanha entry in the Station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence. The station diary entry has not been brought on record. At the place of occurrence, after having recorded the fard-beyan of the victim, he interrogates Ram Bilash Singh (PW 4). Where PW 3, the other son is, is not known. This is of some importance because PW 3 has categorically stated that he went to the police station, informed about the occurrence which could be the first information report to the Police and brought the Police personnel to the place of occurrence. This is also so stated by PW 4. All this is not known to I. O. He, then, gives his objective finding about the place of occurrence. He allegedly, picks up the blood soaked soil from near the well. He picks up two empty rifle cartridges and prepared seizure lists of both but he does not find any cot near the well. He, then, states that having recorded the fard-beyan of the victim and interrogated PW 4, he immediately arrested Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh from his house who immediately produced various documents to show that he had succeeded in litigation as against Jamuna Singh and had got delivery of possession of the lands through court. He denies that PW 3 Prabhat Kumar came to the Police Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 13 Station and gave any information. He states that Prabhat Kumar was interrogated later on and the evidence of Prabhat Kumar in court is contradicted by his statement made to the Police under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. The suggestion is given to him that Prabhat Kumar PW 3 had in fact informed the Police at the Police Station itself which statement is being suppressed. He is, then, recalled by the Prosecution. This time he proves the seizure list with regard to blood stained mud and empty cartridges. He states that Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh had produced his rifle duly wrapped and sealed which he had, then, sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with two empty cartridges found at the place of occurrence and had received the report from there. He admits that the rifle was received wrapped in the cloth with seal but the seal bit was taken away by Kishori Singh himself.
15. We, then, have PW 7 Yashwant Poddar. He is the Deputy Director of Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna where the rifle has been sent for forensic examination and test in order to establish whether this licensee rifle was, in any way, used at the place of occurrence or whether the empty cartridges were fired from the said rifle. He proved his report in this regard to show that having tested a separate cartridge and comparing with the empty cells found, in his opinion, it was this rifle which had used the two cartridges empty of which was seized. In Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 14 cross-examination, he was asked as to how he had received the empty cartridges and the rifle. He states that the rifle was wrapped in cloth with the empty cartridges and kept in a wooden box. He is questioned directly whether the box and the cloth wrapping were sealed. He said that if they were sealed, he would have so noted in his report. Meaning thereby that there being no such endorsement in the report with regard to aforesaid, the rifle was received in unsealed condition.
16. We, then, have PW 8. He is technician in Forensic Science Laboratory, Patna and what he has proved is that the sample of mud which had substantial quantity of blood but nothing beyond that. Whether it was human blood or animal blood, he has not stated in his report. Whether it was blood of the victim has not been stated. As noted earlier, the independent witness to the two seizure list, with regard to the empty cartridges and the blood stained mud, had been declared hostile as they did not support the seizure as alleged in the records.
17. We, then, have PW 9 Anandi Prasad. We have indicated his evidence earlier. He is a private compounder who was brought to prove the injury report and the post mortem report. The injury report is prepared by a doctor at Chandi State Dispensary. The doctor is not known to this witness. Similarly, the post mortem report is prepared by a doctor at the Patna Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 15 Medical College Hospital where this witness has never worked with the said doctor. Still he proved the two reports and regrettably, the Court accepts the same and acts upon as evidence. It is not evidence which has been duly proved in accordance with law. The court committed error of law in even noticing these documents. They were inadmissible in evidence and consequently have no evidentiary value.
18. Before considering the submissions, we would like to note another aspect which arises from the documents which we have already held to be inadmissible. The first is Ext. 10- the injury report. That is the first report prepared with regard to physical condition of the victim Jamuna Singh. It was prepared on the requisition made by the Investigating Officer (PW 6). It states that there was laceration in the right hand from the elbow to the wrist. That bone was crushed. There was a small wound at the end of the ring finger of the left hand. No other injury whatsoever is noticed. What is mentioned is that the injuries occurred within 24 hours, not that it has occurred within an hour or two because as per prosecution case, the injuries were inflicted in between 1.00 AM to 2.00 AM and the doctor examined the victim at 3.30 AM. This raises the doubt of time of the injury and the type of injury and the manner of occurrence. The next is the inquest report (Ext. 4) that is prepared at Patna Medical College Hospital. The reason for Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 16 death as noted therein is gun shot injury. It is signed by non- else than Rajendra Singh who is the brother of the victim whose name has been mentioned by PW 4, the son of the victim, as the person who is making pairvy in the case. It has never been the prosecution case that the victim was ever shot. What is more striking is that it mentions about amputated hand and bandaged abdomen. It has never been the case of the prosecution nor did the injury report earlier prepared suggesting that there was any injury on the abdomen of the victim. Now, when we come to the post mortem report which is Ext. 9, it is more intriguing. It is an apology for a post mortem report. All this says is examination of the dead body with amputated right hand, stitched and bandaged, a wound on the abdomen 8" x ½"
stitched and bandaged, no further attempt is made to find out what this wound was or what was the reason of death. Did he die of any infection? Did he die of septicemia or what was the injury which led to amputation sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and what was the new injury on the abdomen. This injury was never mentioned any where before or thereafter. There was no dissection to determine the cause of abdominal injury. Whether that was the cause of death? We are noticing these facts because these were important. A person can only be charged with murder, if he is found to be responsible for causing the death. A person having caused an injury and the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 17 person dying but not because of that injury will not amount to committing murder.
19. Now, We come to PW 10, Madan Prasad who is the Malkhana In-charge, allegedly, where the rifle in question is said to have been deposited. In his deposition he states that the rifle was searched in Malkhana but it is not traceable. It could not be accordingly, produced as material evidence in the Court. It has rightly been submitted on behalf of the appellants that if the rifle was never submitted in the Malkhana how and under what circumstances it was sent to the FSL. The whole evidence of the rifle being used and connecting it with the alleged empty cartridges, found at the place of occurrence, itself becomes highly doubtful.
20. Before proceeding further, we may note another disturbing factor of the trial which is with regard to the statement of the accused as recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is now well settled by a catena of the decisions that this is not an empty formality. It is a very important stage of the trial because this is virtually the only opportunity to an accused to explain the circumstances as relied upon by the prosecution and appearing against him. It cannot be a casual question but the entire circumstance on which the prosecution seeks to rely and has been proved that has to be brought to the notice of the accused and any material Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 18 circumstance which is not brought to the notice of the accused, at this stage, cannot be used as against the accused. It is for this reason that this recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is a very important stage in the trial. When we look to the statements, they are an apology for a statement. All the accused persons are put a common question. The first being that "on date of occurrence you along with others killed Jamuna Singh, is it true or not". Even to the court, at this stage, when such statement is recorded, this is a useless or absurd question inasmuch as Jamuna Singh was not killed on that day, he died 4-5 days later in course of treatment. The evidence right from the allegations in the FIR up to the end, as relied upon by the prosecution, was that Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh had inflicted repeated lathi blows on the right hand of Jamuna Singh virtually severed it from the elbow. This is not even mentioned in the question. The prosecution case has been that none of the other persons even touched Jamuna Singh. Kishori Singh or other persons though they were armed and were firing indiscriminately in the air, nothing in relation to this was put to the accused. The next question put is that the accused persons had used illegal fire-arms for attaining illegal objective of killing Jamuna Singh. We failed to understand, whose case was this? This was never the prosecution's case. The third question was "have you to say any thing?" None of the incriminating Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 19 circumstances as available against each individual accused was put to him or his attention was drawn to those soliciting the reply of the accused. The whole purpose of Section 313 Cr.P.C. and the valuable right given to the accused therein is totally defeated and frustrated in the mechanical manner. Mindless questions are drafted and put to the accused by the trial court. If we apply strictly the law in this regard, then, virtually the entire prosecution evidence which was not put to the accused persons have to be discarded from consideration by the court. There would be no evidence at all left, because circumstances not put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., cannot be used against the accused, that is well settled. There is no denial that in such circumstances grave prejudice is caused to the accused for he is denied opportunity to defend, which the learned trial Judge is solely responsible. He abdicated his responsibility and his duty.
21. Now coming to the submissions as made by Shri B. P. Pandey, learned Senior Counsel, in support of appeals. His first submission rightly would be that the manner in which the occurrence took place and the place of occurrence as projected by the prosecution cannot be accepted. He rightly points out that if a man assaults 10 or more times on person lying on a cot, there would be injuries on other parts of the body as well and not that there would only be a continuous Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 20 laceration from elbow to wrist crushing the bone within. The prosecution evidence is consistent that only Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh assaulted Jamuna Singh. Yet though the injury report prepared within an hour, if the injuries were inflicted, mentions of only injury in the right hand and nothing more. We would then come to the inquest report. It is alleged that Jamuna Singh was shot dead. Bandage injury is found at the abdomen. When we come to the post mortem report, apart from noticing that right hand had been amputated at the elbow, it is found that abdomen had a wound over 8" long and ½" wide which had been stitched and bandaged. Where did this injury come from? Why not it is mentioned in the first injury report prepared by the doctor within hours of the occurrence? Surely, prosecution had to do a lot of explaining and probably it is because of that the post mortem report was not got duly proved by the doctor who had conducted the same and denied opportunity to the defence. The injuries found on the person of Jamuna Singh is totally incompatible with the evidence of the prosecution and no effort has been made to explain or reconcile the same. This creates doubt about the prosecution story. We may also refer to the injury report which says that the injuries were caused within 24 hours and not within a short period prior to the examination. This also creates doubt because if the injuries are fresh with crushed bone and laceration, it would be Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 21 bleeding and a doctor can easily identify it as an injury caused within hours but the doctor plays safe by writing 24 hours. This doctor is again not examined. As noted earlier, the injury report is got proved by a compounder of Biharsharif who does not know the doctor.
22. Then, we come to the place of occurrence.
Again, on behalf of the appellant it is rightly submitted that if the injuries were of the nature as alleged, surely, at the site or the place of occurrence not only the cot should have been found, it must have had a lot of blood at that place. The investigating officer (PW 6) is not shown the cot at all. He found no cot at the place of occurrence. He allegedly, picks up blood stained mud and sent it to FSL but the independent seizure list witness (PW 1) denies the same. He is declared hostile. The FSL report merely mentions blood but there is no further evidence because there is no serological report as to whose blood it was. Whether the human blood, animal blood or blood of a bird. Nothing is shown. Then, there is no objective finding which can be relied upon as given by the Investigating Officer with regard to place of occurrence. Then, it is rightly submitted on behalf of the appellants that the whole incident has been cooked up much later. As per the fard-beyan, it is recorded at 2.45 PM and is supposedly the formal case is registered at 5.00 AM on 16.6.1979 but it is sent to court only the next day after having Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 22 been kept at the police station for almost 24 hours even though it is said to have been sent on 17.6.1979 and it is placed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate only on 18.6.1979. What is more striking is that when we come to the ordersheet of the C.J.M. The ordersheet starts with 16.6.1979 i.e. prior to dispatch of the FIR from the Police Station to the Court. The endorsement date on the FIR is interpolated. Another very unusual event is that as per the deposition of PW 6 the Investigating officer, upon reaching the place of occurrence, he immediately, arrested Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh that would be in the earlier hours of 16.6.979 but he has produced him in the court only on 18.6.1979 almost after 48 hours. There is no explanation for this.
23. We, then, come to a more crucial aspect in this regard. The defence suggestion is that PW 3 was not even in the village on the said date. He came two days later i.e. on 18.6.1979. He denies it. But while denying it, PW 3 the son of the deceased states that immediately after the occurrence he had rushed to the Police Station. PW 4 another brother states that PW 3 had lodged the FIR at the Police Station. PW 3 states that he had narrated the incident at the Police Station to the Officer Incharge even disclosing the names of the miscreants and it is pursuant to this that Police accompanied him to the village immediately but when we have the evidence of the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 23 Investigating Office, PW 6, he denies all this. He states that the Officer In-charge asked him to go to the village, he made a Sanha entry which was not produced in the court and proceeded to the village. He does not accept the fact that PW 3 had made any disclosures. He interrogates PW 3 for the first time after two days that is admitted by PW 3 as well. This clearly shows that the incident as narrated in the fard-beyan and as supported by the prosecution witnesses is not the true version of the incident. More is being ought to be concealed then disclosed by the prosecution. None of these are explained by the prosecution nor they are in a position to explain.
24. Though on this ground alone, the appeals can be allowed but there is one another aspect. When PW 3, the son of the deceased, is questioned about the litigation, he states that there has been no litigation amongst the two groups. But PW 4 admits that there had been litigation and there had been court's order as recent as 1976. PW 6, the Investigating officer, then, admits that when he arrested Kishori Singh @ Nawal Kishore Singh, he produced orders of the court, decree of the court as well as orders in execution proceedings where pursuant to the orders of the court lands adjacent to the place of occurrence were delivered to the possession of Kishori Singh as recently as in the year 1976. This conscious concealment by the prosecution gives rise to adverse inference, inasmuch as the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.348 of 1992 dt.11-09-2014 24 civil court proceeding is only against the prosecution and provides it motive to take revenge and not upon the defence who had succeeded and got the lands.
25. Thus, having considered all the materials as aforesaid, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact the entire prosecution case from the beginning up to the end is full of doubts. We have no option but to allow the appeals, set aside the conviction and punishment. We, accordingly, do so. The appellants are relieved of their bail bonds.
(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)
(Jitendra Mohan Sharma, J)
avin/A.F.R.
U T