Patna High Court
Balbhadra Singh & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 26 March, 2018
Author: Vinod Kumar Sinha
Bench: Vinod Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.292 of 2003
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -null Year- null Thana -null District- SIWAN
===========================================================
1. Balbhadra Singh son of Sheo Pujan Singh
2. Umesh Singh, son of Balbhadhra Singh
3. Sunil Singh, son of Ganesh Singh
4. Ganesh Singh son of Sheo Pujan singh, all residents of village Awari, P.S.
Dhuranda, Dsitrict Siwan.
.... .... Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Vikramdeo Singh, Adv.
Mr. Narendra Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. Bipin Kumar, A.P.P.
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR SINHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 26-03-2018 Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant nos. 3 and 4 have been convicted under Section 324/34 of the IPC, vide judgment and order dated 22.5.2003 passed by Sri Shyam Nandan Prasad Verma, Adhoc District & Sessions Judge, FTC No.I, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No.149 of 1994.
2. It further appears that case of the co-accused Nandu Singh has been separated and sent to the Juvenile Justice Board as he was found juvenile.
3. All the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 324 of the IPC and also under Sections Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 2003 dt.26-03-2018 2/6 324/34 of the IPC.
4. In this case as there was submission that appellant no.1 and 4 died as such a report was called for from the S.P., Siwan, who has submitted his report showing that the appellant nos. 1 and 4 have died during the pendency of the Appeal, as such the Appeal against them stands abated.
5. The prosecution case as per fardbeyan of informant Triloki Nath Singh (P.W.2) in short is that on the day of occurrence the informant was going with paddy seedlings to sow the paddy in the field east of village, all the appellants and accused Nandu Singh were present there armed with lathi. Further the case is that accused Balbhadra Singh was stealing water from the field of the informant, which was protested by the informant, then he was abused and as per order of the accused Balbhadra Singh, seedlings of the paddy was pull down from the head of the informant and thereafter Umesh assaulted by Farsa and other accused persons assaulted by lathi causing injury to him and on hulla being raised, his father, brother and Deo Nath Singh came there and rescued him.
6. It further appears in this case that in this case altogether seven witnesses have been examined during trial and they are P.W.1 Deo Nath Singh, who has not supported the prosecution case, P.W. Triloki Nath Singh (informant and injured), P.W.3 Devendra Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 2003 dt.26-03-2018 3/6 Kumar Singh, brother of the informant, P.W.4 Sheoji Singh, eye witness of the occurrence, P.W.5 Doctor S.K. Aman, Civil Surgeon, who has examined Triloki Nath Singh, P.W.6 Shiv Nath Singh, declared hostile and P.W.7 Ravi Ranjan Singh, who has proved Exts. 1 and 1/1.
7. Apart from the above, following documents have been brought on record as exhibits, they are Ext.1 signture of the Triloki Nath Singh, Ext.2 injury report, Ext. 1/1 signature Raj Kishore Singh, S.I. on the fardbeyan.
8. On behalf of the defence also two witnesses have been examined they are P.W.1 Gajadhar Mishra and P.W.2 Ramashankar Singh and following documents have been brought on record on behalf of the defence, Ext.A application of Partition in Suit No.75 of 1990, Ext.B Panchnama dated 11.10.1956, Ext.C certified copy of Khatiyan.
9. The learned trial court on conclusion of the trial has convicted the appellant nos. 1 and 2 under Section 324 of the IPC and appellant nos. 3 and 4 under Section 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them as thereunder.
10. On perusal of the evidence it appears that P.W.2 is the informant of the case and supported the prosecution case, so far genesis of the occurrence and time and place of the occurrence is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 2003 dt.26-03-2018 4/6 concerned and his evidence discloses that while the informant was going with seedlings of paddy on his head, he saw Balbhadra Singh stealing water from his field and on protest he was assaulted by Farsa by Umesh Singh and also assaulted by the other accused persons Sunil Singh and Ganesh Singh by lathi. This witness has been cross examined on length but there is nothing in his evidence to doubt the prosecution case. His evidence found further supports from the evidence of P.Ws. 3 and 4. P.Ws.1 and 6 have not supported the prosecution case, P.W.5 Dr. S.K. Aman is the Doctor who has treated Triloki Singh (P.W.2) and has found following injuries :
I. Incised 2" X ½" X1/4" on left perietal area of scalp II. Lacerated would 1 ½" X 1/4 " on the left side of occipital region of scalp.
III. Bruise 4" X 1" on right scapular region IV. Abrasion 1" X ¼" right side of leg.
His evidence also discloses that injuries were simple in nature and rest by hard and blunt substance and he has proved injury report as Ext.2. The evidence of the Doctor supports manner of the occurrence as stated by P.W.2. The evidence of P.Ws also found corroboration from evidence of other witnesses also. P.W.2 has stated that he was assaulted by accused by farsa on head and he has stated that he was assaulted by Umesh Singh by Farsa and the injury of the hard and blunt substance has been found on scapular Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 2003 dt.26-03-2018 5/6 region and right side of the leg.
11. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that there was a partition suit between the party and panchayat was held. D.W.1 has proved Bantwara i.e. Ext.B and in such a situation, due to non-examination of the I.O., prosecution has failed to establish this place of occurrence. Further submission is that no independent witness has been examined and as such possibility of false implication can not be ruled out. On the other hand, evidence of D.W.2 shows that there was no ekj fiV between the parties as he was present throughout the day on his Darwaza and he had not seen the occurrence but in spite of that the learned trial court has convicted the appellants.
12. On perusal of the judgment, it appears that the learned trial court has disbelieved D.W.2 same on the ground that he appears to be Sadhu (brother-in-law of the appellant Balbhadra Singh) and on the other hand, there are consistent evidence to show that informant (P.W.2) was assaulted by appellants and the Doctor (P.W.5) has found injury over his person. As such the learned trial court has convicted the appellants under Section 324 and 324/34 of the IPC, hence, I find no infirmities and inconsistencies in the impugned judgment and hence, conviction under Sections 324 and 324/34 of the IPC of the appellant Umesh Singh and under Section Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.292 of 2003 dt.26-03-2018 6/6 324/34 of the IPC of the appellant Sunil Singh is affirmed.
13. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the occurrence is of the year, 1992 and almost 25 years have lapsed after the occurrence and both the appellants are now aged about 50 years, in such circumstances lenient view may be taken and they may be released on executing probation bond under Section 360 of the Cr.P.C., however considering allegation of assault, instead of affirming the order of sentence against appellants, this Court find it proper for awarding them a fine of Rs.1,000/- which shall be deposited in the court below and shall be payable to the injured.
14. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.
(Vinod Kumar Sinha, J) chn/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 03.04.2018 Transmission 03.04.2018 Date