Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The further case is that on receiving the gun shot injury by the five accused persons Bunilal Rai the husband of the informant fled away to adjoining room by the side of that room and there he fell down and died.

5. Further the case of the informant in the fardbeyan is that in the mean time Chandeshwar Rai caught the hand of the informant and dragged her and gave two slaps and got her seated near him. The son of the informant Upendra Rai (P.W. 4) ran to rescue his father (deceased) then accused Jitendra Rai, Raja Ram Mahto, Ram Binod Mahato, Raj Kumar Mahto and Ajablal Rai fired at Upendra Rai (P.W. 4) by which he got badly injured and fell down then Kishori Rai assaulted him by Farsa.

23. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 claimed to be injured during the occurrence. But there is no injury proved on the person of P.W. 1. and P.W. 3. However, P.W. 6 has come to prove injury report Ext. 1, the injury on the person of Prabhu Rai (P.W. 2) as simple, which is only „tenderness‟ without any dimension of „tenderness‟ and hence the injury on the person of P.W. 2 is doubtful.

24. However, so far the injury on the person of Upendra Rai (P.W.

4) is concerned P.W. 6 the doctor who examined P.W. 4 at Narwara Hospital has proved the injury report and has deposed that injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 on the person of Upendra Rai was by hard and blunt substance which was simple in nature and with regard to injury nos. 4, 5 and 6 the patient was referred to S.K.M.C.H. However, the injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 are lacerated wound on the scalp on the left portion of the left side of the neck. Injury no. 4 is lacerated wound on the left side of the chest. Injury no. 5 is lacerated wound of left forearm below elbow and injury no. 6 lacerated is lacerated wound on the mid portion of the calf muscle and hence there is nothing in his evidence to suggest that injuries were serious in nature. P.W. 10 is the evidence of Dr. Basant Kumar Sinha, who examined Upendra Rai at S.K.M.C.H and has stated that he only examined the injury no. 3 an incised wound over the anterior abdominal wall 1" long tear in interior wall of stomach. However, the injury report has been marked as Ext. ½ with objection as the injury report was a copy of original injury report and he has not mentioned that it is the copy copied by him from the original report and the injuries were said to be written in injury register at S.K.M.C.H but he has not written the injury from that injury register. However, P.W. 4 claims to be seriously injured and assails Ext. A on the ground that he was seriously injured and was unable to speak out but there is no corroborating evidence about his being unconscious and about his remaining admitted in S.K.M.C.H. for 1-1/2 months and hence his evidence is only an attempt to reconcile the inconsistency in prosecution case and to explain away Ext. „A‟ which bears his own signature and signature of his brother as witness. The evidence of P.W. 2 suffers from contradiction and development.

30. The I.O. in his evidence has further stated that he learnt that one of the son of the informant, i.e., Upendra Rai (P.W. 4) is injured and is in Narwara Hospital for treatment and he proceeded to Narwara Hospital and took the injury report of the injured Upendra Rai (P.W. 4) at 8:00 A.M on 04.03.1994 which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. Again he proceeded from Narwara Hospital and reached the place of occurrence at 9:30 A.M. and recorded the further statement of the informant and thereafter recorded the statement of Prabhu Rai (P.W. 2), Kashi Rai (P.W. 1) and Surendra Rai (not examined) and others and submitted the charge-sheet after due investigation on receipt of the post-mortem report and the injury reports.

39. Moreover, recording of the two fardbeyans in the same case itself creates a doubt that there is some hanky panky in the investigation of the prosecution case. It is apparent that the police proceeded at the place of occurrence on the information received from the Chaukidar 7/3 Ramchandra Rai D.W. 1, who had given the statement after due verification of the occurrence by himself going at the place of occurrence but the said statement of Ramchandra Rai which was recorded in the station diary has not been proved or brought on record. The said Ramchandra Rai has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution but by the defence as D.W. 1 who has stated that after the occurrence he went to the place of occurrence and found the deceased and the injured Upendra Rai and Upendra Rai did not disclose the name of the any accused persons and rather disclosed that he (Upendra Rai P.W. 4) did not identify the culprits. Witnesses in the fardbeyan of Upendra Rai, Ext. A, who are also charge-sheet witnesses were not examined. The I.O., P.W. 7 has proved Ext. A with specific assertion that the fardbeyan of Upendra Rai P.W. 4 was recorded at 3:00 A.M. at the Narwara Hospital. Ext. A mentions the name of only ten accused persons whereas the fardbeyan of P.W. 3 recorded at 3:30 A.M on same mentions the name of 21 persons with specific roles attributed to some of them.