Bachcha Singh And Ors vs State Of Jharkhand

Chandrashekhar, J

Affidavit dated 22.07.2019 on behalf of the State is tendered in the Court.

Taken on record.

Two persons were named as accused in Bhandaria P.S. Case No. 23 of 1996 which was registered under section 302/34 IPC on the basis of the fardbeyan of Munshi Singh, husband of Parwati Devi. After the investigation, both the accused persons were sent up for trial. During the trial the prosecution has examined altogether 8 witnesses; the informant is P.W. 8 and the investigating officer is P.W. 6.

Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha who has conducted the post-mortem examination has found the following injuries on Parwati Devi:

"(1) Lacerated wound 6"X 2"X bone deep with fracture of the mandible bone on right side of cheek with injury to vessels and nerves muscles of cheek.

(2) Incised wound 3X1/2"X1/2" over the tongue arteries third region.

(3) Lacerated wound 2"X1"X scalp deep over right side of forehead and temporal region of scalp.

(4) Bruise 4"X1" below left eye.

(5) Abrasion 2"X1" right lower eye lid.

(6) Abrasion 3"X 1/4" left side of cheek.

(7) Bruise 10"X4" on left chest including manubrium sterni region.

(8) Incised wound 2"X1"X bone deep with fracture of mandible bone and injury to vessels and nerves.

(9) Abrasion 3"X2" over the chin area."

Initially, the prosecution projected three persons namely, Geeta Devi, Bhagwati Devi and Sheokumari Devi as eye-witness, however, only Bhagwati Devi has been examined during the trial as other two witnesses have passed away.

In his fardbeyan the informant namely, Munshi Singh has stated that at about 1.00 p.m in the noon he was working in his field with his brother Keshwar Singh. At that time, co-villager namely, Dadan Gupta came running to him and asked him to come home. The informant has stated that when he reached home he found dead-body of his wife drenched in blood lying in the house. On enquiry from Geeta Devi and Bhagwati Devi, they informed him that Bachcha Singh armed with tangi and Mohan Singh armed with lathi have assaulted his wife Parwati Devi. The informant has asserted that he had a long standing land dispute with the accused persons and previously they declared his wife witch in a Panchayati.

Admittedly, the informant is not an eye-witness. His brother namely, Keshwar Singh who has been examined as P.W. 5 is also not an eye-witness. The witness-Dadan Prasad who according to the informant had called him home during his examination in the court has not supported the prosecution's case.

The only eye-witness in the case is Bhagwati Devi. In her examination-in-chief, she has stated that the appellant namely, Bachcha Singh was holding a tangi and the appellant namely, Mohan Singh was wielding lathi and they have assaulted Parwati Devi. She has asserted that she was in the house at that time. During her cross-examination, she has reiterated that at the time of the occurrence she was present in her room.

Mr. Md. I. Khan, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that on her own saying P.W. 7 is not an eye-witness. This contention is based on an answer elicited from P.W. 7 during her cross-examination where she says that the deceased namely, Parwati Devi was in another room when the occurrence has taken place. We are not impressed with this contention. P.W. 7 is a natural witness. Her cross-examination in the court affirms that she was present in the house at the time of occurrence. She has proved presence of the appellants and assault by them on Parwati Devi on the fateful day. Minor contradiction in her evidence and her aforesaid statement in her cross-examination that she and Parwati Devi both were in different rooms do not make her evidence inconsistent.

True, the other witnesses are formal witness but then by now it is well-settled that conviction of an accused can be based on the evidence of solitary eye-witness and no corroboration is required if his evidence inspires confidence.

In view of the evidences led by the prosecution in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1997, we are inclined to hold that presence of the appellants namely, Bachcha Singh and Mohan Singh at the relevant time at the place of occurrence is established. They have assaulted Parwati Devi is also proved from the manner of occurrence as disclosed by the prosecution.

During pendency of this criminal appeal, the appellant namely, Bachcha Singh has passed away and, accordingly, this criminal appeal qua appellant no. 1 namely, Bachcha Singh has abated.

The surviving appellant namely, Mohan Singh was wielding a lathi and it has been proved that he has also assaulted Parwati Devi.

Now, the question is whether the appellant namely, Mohan Singh can be convicted under section 302/34 IPC.

The doctor has found as many as nine injuries on the body of Parwati Devi. The injury nos. (2) and (8) were caused by a sharp cutting weapon. The other injuries - lacerated and bruises - have been caused by hard and blunt substance. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries suffered by Parwati Devi. The doctor has stated that these injuries were sufficient in the natural course to cause death. From the evidence led by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has failed to establish which injury has proved fatal and who is author of the fatal injury. The prosecution has also failed to establish that the other injuries, particularly, lacerated wounds found on the body of Parwati Devi could not have been caused by back side of a tangi. The manner of occurrence does not reveal and there is no other evidence that would establish that the appellant namely, Mohan Singh has shared common intention with Bachcha Singh to kill Parwati Devi and it was in furtherance of the common intention of both the appellants that death of Parwati Devi has been caused. The appellant namely, Mohan Singh, thus, cannot be convicted with the aid of section 34 IPC for causing death of Parwati Devi. All that the prosecution has established is that he has caused grievous injury to Parwati Devi.

Section 325 IPC provides punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Accordingly, we hold that the appellant namely, Mohan Singh is liable to be convicted under section 325 IPC and he is sentenced to undergo R.I for Seven years.

The judgment of conviction under section 302/34 IPC dated 15.02.2001 and the order of sentence of R.I for life dated 16.02.2001 against the appellant namely, Mohan Singh passed in Sessions Trial No. 15 of 1997 are set-aside.

Mr. Gouri Shanker Prasad, the learned Spl. P.P states that the appellant has remained in jail custody for more than Seven years.

Accordingly, the appellant namely, Mohan Singh, son of Vidya Narain Singh is discharged of liability of the bail-bonds furnished by him.

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 107 of 2001 is partly allowed.

Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the court concerned through FAX.

Let the lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.