Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts of the present case, in a nutshell, are as under:-

2.1. The prosecution case is based on the fard-

beyan of the informant Kanchan Pasi, recorded by Sub Inspector of Police of Nawanagar Police Station, Buxar, on 31.03.2016, at about 08:30 AM, at Katiknar on village road, that, on 31.03.2016 at about 08.05 AM, the informant with his father Ghughali Pasi (deceased), his mother Kouta Devi and sister-in-law Dharmsheela Devi was returning from the field of Nanhaku Singh after cutting Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.582 of 2017 dt.04-09-2024 the crop of lentil and reached at the door of Nirmal Singh. All the named accused persons, Joni Passi @ Ravindra Pasi, Gidik Pasi, Virendra Pasi, Chandan Pasi, Pappu Pasi @ Hindustan Pasi, Krishna Pasi (juvenile) and Botal Pasi surrounded them and assaulted the father of the informant. Ravindra Pasi inflicted repeated blows by means of Katta (a sharp cutting weapon) upon the deceased. When they tried to save the deceased, the accused persons assaulted them and as the villagers assembled, the accused persons fled away. Thereafter, they reached near his father, who died at the spot. Prior to this occurrence, the accused persons also went to their house looking for them and when they did not find them, they assaulted his nephew and nieces.

2.2. After recording of the fard-beyan of the informant, formal FIR came to be registered before Nawanagar Police Station, bearing Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 41 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 447, 341, 323, 302 120(B)/34 of the IPC at about 08:05 AM on 3103.2016.

2.3. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer commenced the investigation and during the course of the investigation, he had recorded the statement of the witnesses and collected documentary evidence and thereafter filed the charge- sheet against the appellants-accused before the concerned Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.582 of 2017 dt.04-09-2024 Magistrate Court. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the same to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code, where the same was registered as Sessions Trial No. 256 of 2016.

5.2. Learned senior counsel further submits that, as per the case of the prosecution, PW 1, the doctor, who has conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, commenced the postmortem at 02:30 PM. However, in the postmortem report (ext.-1), there is no mention with regard to the P.S. case number. Learned senior counsel referred the deposition of PW 1 and thereafter contended that the said witness admits to have found and recorded foul smelling gas and he admits that it remained present after 12 hours of death. It has also been submitted that the said witness has not recorded the presence of rigor mortis whether in ascending or descending order. It is further submitted that, as per the said witness, time since death was 6-24 hours. Learned senior counsel, therefore, submits that despite the fact that the formal FIR was recorded at 13:45 hours and the postmortem was conducted at 02:30 PM, still police station case number was not mentioned in the postmortem report. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.582 of 2017 dt.04-09-2024 5.3. It is further submitted that, as per the fard- beyan given by the informant PW 7, while returning after stacking the lentil at the door of Nanhku singh with his deceased father, mother, sister-in-law and brother Sukar Pasi, all the seven named accused persons surrounded them and started assaulting his father with Katta (a sharp-cutting weapon) and killed him and when they tried to save the deceased, they were also attacked and assaulted, due to which they fled away. Thereafter, when the villagers arrived there, the accused persons fled away. It is also alleged, in the FIR, that earlier the accused had also gone to the house of the informant searching them and assaulted and abused the family members. It is submitted that how could the informant know earlier that the accused had gone to the informant's house in their search and assaulted the members there. Thus, the story put forward by the informant, in the fard-beyan, is doubtful and the FIR was, in fact, lodged after the postmortem was conducted.

21. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. We also perused the materials on record and the evidence led by the prosecution as well as by the defence.

21.1. It would emerge from the record that, as per the case of the prosecution, incident took place at 08:05 AM on 31.03.2016. The fard-beyan of the informant (PW 7) was immediately recorded at 08:30 AM. Thus, in the present case, there was no time for the informant or police to falsely implicate the appellants-accused in the incident in question. Learned counsel for the appellants has tried to contend that the Investigating Officer has failed to produce the station diary entry. It is also contended by him that who has given information to the police with regard to the incident in question and what was the said information is not coming out on the record. However, it is pertinent to note that the distance of the police station from the place of incident is only 8 kms. Therefore, it is possible for the police to reach to the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.582 of 2017 dt.04-09-2024 incident immediately and to record the fard-beyan. Merely because the station diary entry was not produced before the court, the story put forth by the prosecution cannot be doubted only on that ground. It is pertinent to note that the Investigating Officer, in his deposition, has specifically deposed that he found blood at the place of incident and he collected the blood stained soil from the said place. From the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, it would further reveal that first incident took place at the house of the informant and PW's 4, 5 and 8 have supported the case of the prosecution and proved the manner in which the incident took place at the house. Thereafter, when PW's 6, 7 and 9 with the deceased were coming to their house after harvesting lentil. The appellants-accused came near the house and assaulted the deceased with weapons like Katta and Dab. It is pertinent to note that PW 1 (Doctor) has found five injuries on the dead body of the deceased. Even left palm was separated from the body at 4" above wrist joint by sharp-cutting instrument. The Doctor has specifically opined that cause of death is shock and hemorrhage due to ante mortem injuries sustained by the deceased, which were caused by sharp- cutting instruments. Further, it is specifically stated that the time elapsed since death was within 6-20 hours. At this stage, it is to be recalled that, as per the case of the prosecution, the incident took Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.582 of 2017 dt.04-09-2024 place at 08:05 AM, whereas the postmortem was conducted at 02:45 PM. Thus, we are of the view that the medical evidence fully supports the version given by the three eyewitnesses. Learned senior advocate for the appellant has contended that the Doctor has stated, in the cross-examination, that he found foul smelling gas in large intestine, which may be present after 12 hours and, on the basis of the same, it has been contended that the death was caused prior to 12 hours. However, we are of the view that the aforesaid contention is misconceived in view of the specific opinion given by the Doctor that the time elapsed since death is between 6-24 hours.