Patna High Court
Sheo Chandra Ram vs The State Of Bihar on 18 May, 2006
Author: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Bench: Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, Shyam Kishore Sharma
JUDGMENT Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.
1. Sole appellant, being aggrieved by the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 16th of January, 1988 passed by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 67 of 1986 holding him guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal.
2. Prosecution story, according to the first information report (Ext. 3) given by P.W.4 Ganesh Ram before the Officer Incharge of Bhagwanpur Police Station is that on 28.5.1985, while he was at his residence, he came to know that milk had not come from his bathan as usual till 6 A.M, he went to his bathan to make enquiry in this regard. At the bathan, according to the informant, his brother was not found and on enquiry from the servant Rajdeo, he came to know that he has gone to plough the banana-field and on this information, he proceeded towards the said field and when reached near its north-west corner, he saw his brother Bisheshwar Singh fleeing with spade towards south being chased by several accused persons including Anant Ram and the appellant Sheo Chandra Ram carrying sickle (Hasuli). According to the report, Rameshwar ordered for assault upon which Anant Ram fired from his country made pistol and Bisheshwar Singh after sustaining fire-arms injuries, ran for some distance but fell down near the house of Ram Prasad, The informant has further alleged that Sarikhan Singh caught hold of the deceased and the appellant pierced the stomach of Bisheshwar Singh by his sickle at the order of Rameshwar Singh, where he died. According to the first information report, when the informant raised alarm and rushed towards his brother, the assailants fled away. According to the informant, Jagmati Devi and Hari Narain Singh saw the occurrence who have been examined as P.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively. According to the informant, the occurrence had taken place because of the village-feud.
3. The police investigated the case and submitted charge sheet against the appellant. It is not known as to what had happened to the other accused persons but it seems that excepting Anant Ram, plea of accused persons of alibi has unfortunately been accepted during the course of investigation and excepting the appellant, nobody has been charge sheeted.
4. It is relevant here to state that during the course of investigation, the statement of P.W 2 Jagmati Devi was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, hereinafter referred to as "Cr.P.C.' which has been brought on record by the appellant as exhibit.
5. Appellant denied the charge levelled against him and alleged false implication on account of dispute over the wages. From the trend of the cross-examination, his further defence seems to be that the deceased had illicit relationship with P.W. 2 Jagrnati Devi and when the villagers saw them in objectionable position, he was killed.
6. The "prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether eight witnesses out of which P.W.1 Hari Narain Singh, P.W.2 Jagmati Devi and P.W.4 Ganesh Singh claim to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.4 Ganesh Singh is also the informant of the case. P.W.7 Dr. Angad Prasad Mishra, Assistant Professor of Surgery had conducted the post mortem examination and submitted his report. P.W.6 Ram Baran Singh and F.W.8 Rameshwar Prasad are the Police Officers who had conducted the investigation of the case, recorded the statements of the witnesses and ultimately, P.W.8 submitted the charge sheet. P.W.3 Chandra Ketu Prasad Singh is the formal, witness and had identified the signature of the Police Officers. P.W.5 Bashishtha Ram is the Choukidar and had taken the body of the deceased to the hospital for post mortem examination.
7. One Deo Shankar Tiwary, a Karpardaz, has been examined on behalf of the defence as D.W.1, who had proved the statement of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and marked as Ext.A.
8. P.W.1 Hari Narain Singh, in his evidence, has stated that about 6.30 A.M, while he was going to pluck Parwal, a vegetable, from his field and was at a distance of 100-120 ft. east of the place of occurrence, he heard alarm of "Maro-Maro" and saw some persons including Anant Ram running. According to this witness, he proceeded few steps and heard the fire-arm sound and found Anant. Ram carrying the revolver. According to this witness, Anant Ram fired which hit the deceased Bisheshwar Singh in the banana, field and when he tried to flee away, he was apprehended and at the instigation of other persons, appellant pierced the sickle in his stomach, This witness has stated that the place of occurrence is the house of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi.
9. P.W.2 Jagmati Devi, in her evidence, has stated that while she was going to collect grass and reached near the house of one Jogendra Musahar, she heard Anant Ram and various other persons deliberating to kill Bisheshwar Singh at which, she raised alarm. According to this witness, they surrounded the deceased in the banana-field and Anant Ram fired causing injury to him. The deceased, according to this witness, ran for life but fell down 5-6 laggies away from her house where he was caught hold of and at the instigation, this appellant pierced his sickle in the stomach of the deceased due to which his intestine came out. However, in the cross-examination, she has stated that after sustaining. the gun - shot. injuries, Bisheshwar Singh fell down in the field of Sukhdeo Singh. Her attention was also drawn to the statement made by her before the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. where she had stated that Anant Ram had pierced the sickle in the stomach of the deceased, which she denied. The suggestion that she had illicit relationship with the deceased and on account thereof, he was killed, has also been denied by this witness.
10. P.W.4 Ganesh Singh is the informant of this case and has stated in his evidence that when he reached the banana-field, he saw his brother deceased Bisheshwar Singh fleeing towards the southern side carrying spade on his shoulder and was being chased by other persons including Anant Ram armed with country made pistol and the appellant with sickle. According to this witness, at the instigation, Anant Ram fired which caused injuries to the deceased who fell down near the house of Ram Prasad Paswan, the husband of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi. There, appellant caused injury to the deceased by sickle and thereafter accused persons fled away.
11. P.W.7 Dr. Angad Prasad Mishra had conducted the post mortem examination and submitted the post "mortem report. He had found following injuries on the person of the deceased.
1. Four incised wound measuring 1"x1/4"x scalp deep over both the parietal region. There was no fracture of skull bone or intracavinial injuries.
2. Lacerated wound loop of gut protruding that wound with charred margin measuring 2"x2"x intraperitoeneal over left Lumber region of abdomen.
12. On dissection the doctor found that this wound is communicating to the right thoracic cavity traversing through loop intestine, stomach, liver, right dome of diaphragm and finally damaging the lung tissue. The margin of the wound was charred and the opening was enlarged by means of a sharp weapon. Twenty pellets have been recovered from the right thoracic cavity. In the opinion of the doctor the time elapsed since death and post mortem examination is within 24 hours. He has further opined that injury No. 2 has been caused by sickle and sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.
13. P.W.6 Ram Baran Singh is a Sub-Inspector of Police and during the course of investigation, visited the place of occurrence and according to him, the place of occurrence is 5ft. south to the residence of Ram Prasad Paswan.
14. It is relevant here to state that the statment of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and the appellant has brought the same on record as exhibit during the trial. In her statement recorded the following day of the occurrence under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had stated that it was Anant Ram who had pierced the sickle in the stomach of the deceased and on account thereof, his intestine came out.
15. The learned Judge, relied on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and finding variations in the place of occurrence to be of insignificant nature, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated above.
16. Mr. Birendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the evidence of P.W.2 is fit to be rejected as in the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she had attributed the role of piercing the sickle in the stomach of the deceased to Anant Ram and nothing has been stated so far as this appellant is concerned. He submits that the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. can be looked into for the purpose of seeking corroboration or contradiction.
17. Mr. Lala Kailash Bihari Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, does not dispute this legal position but submits that even if the evidence of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi is ignored, there is sufficient evidence on record to sustain the conviction of the appellant.
18. Having appreciated the rival submission, I am of the opinion that the evidence of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi is not worth acceptance. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. recorded following day of the occurrence, she has stated that it was Anant Ram who assaulted the deceased by sickle but during the trial, this role has been attributed to this appellant. This is a vital contradiction which creates doubt in regard to the veracity of her evidence, I am of the opinion that her evidence is fit to be rejected.
19. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Prasad that the conviction of the appellant can be sustained even if the evidence of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi is rejected, provided that remaining evidence is worth acceptance. Here in the present case, there is vital contradiction in regard to the place where the deceased has been assaulted by sickle, which creates serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. It is relevant here to state that Ram Prasad Paswan is the husband of P.W.2 Jagmati Devi. According to P.W.6, the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence is 6 ft. to 8 ft. south to the house of Ram Prasad Paswan whereas according to P.W.1 Hari Narain Singh, the occurrence had taken place in the house of Jagmati Devi (P.W.2). P.W.2 in her evidence has stated that after sustaining the gun shot injuries, the deceased had fell down in the field of Sukhdeo Singh. According to P.W.4, the occurrence for which appellant had been charged, took place south to the house of Ram Prasad Paswan. Thus, there is variance in regard to the place where the occurrence had taken place. This creates a doubt in regard to the case of the prosecution. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant deserves to be granted the benefit thereof.
20. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence is set aside, Appellant is on bail, he shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.