Damodar Singh vs The State of Bihar

Appellant no. 1 herein Damodar Singh who has been

convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. read

with Section 27 of the Arms Act and awarded to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years and three years respectively, and

appellant nos. 2 and 3, namely Girija Singh and Bira Singh, convicted

under Section 307 / 34, IPC and awarded to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for seven years, have filed this appeal challenging the

orders of their conviction passed by the Additional Court No. I, Patna,

Ad hoc Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Patna in Sessions Trial

No. 111/141 of 1991/2001.

The case of the prosecution is that a Fardi was recorded

on the statement of informant Tapeshwar Singh by Sub Inspector Shri

Indradeo Singh of Bikram Police Station on 20th Novemer, 1985 at 5

A.M. in State Dispensary, Bikram. It was the case of the informant

that on the night of 19th November, 1985 at 9 P.M. when he was

sleeping in one of his khand, at about 2.30 A.M. Damodar Singh and

Ram Kishore Singh armed with pistol, Bira Singh and Girija Singh

armed with garasa entered into the courtyard of his house through the

main door and when he enquired thereupon Sidhi Singh, brother of

the informant, came out in the courtyard and saw Girija Singh to point

out pistol towards him and by abusing him asked about the

whereabouts of the informant Tapeshwar Singh. When Sidhi Singh

informed the accused that Tapeshwar Singh is sleeping the room and

when Sidhi Singh raised alarm the informant tried to flee away. But

while fleeing on being asked by Bira Singh, Damodar Singh is said to

have fired with a pistol causing fire injury on the feet of the informant

who fell down and raised alarm. Other''s escaped and he was taken to

the hospital.

Based on the same, the F.I.R. was lodged and the

appellants were prosecuted for the offences in question.

On the evidence and materials that come on record,

motive of the offence is said to be some land dispute in the matter of

cutting of banana and sahjan trees on the previous day. Even though

the witnesses have testified about the incident, they have also

confessed that various cases are pending between the parties..

However, from the evidence that has come on record, particularly of

PW 7 Dr. A N Jha, it is seen that he found pellet injury on the legs of

the deceased and the injury is said to be grievous in nature and the

patient was discharged immediately thereafter.

Be that as it may, the records indicate that the appellants

have been in custody from the date of the incident for some time. On

going through the records it is seen that the incident took place on 20 th

November, 1985 and Damodar Singh, the main accused, who had

caused the injury on the leg of the injured was more than 72 years of

age, and appellant no. 3 Bira Singh was 85 years of age. As far as

Girija Singh is concerned, no specific overt act is attributed to him

and it is only Damodar Singh who is responsible for having caused

the fire-arm injury.

Taking note of the totality of the circumstances, it is a fit

case where in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, looking

to the age of Damodar Singh and Bira Singh and the role assigned to

Girija Singh, the benefit of release on probation can be granted to the

appellants by virtue of the powers conferred upon this Court under

Section 360(4) of the Cr.P.C. as no useful purpose would be served by

taking back the appellant into custody and asking them to undergo the

remaining period of the sentence. They do not have any previous

criminal antecedents and the incident arose out of a land dispute

between the parties.

In view of the above, instead of imprisoning them to

undergo the remaining period of sentence, it is directed that they be

released on entering into a bond with one surety to the satisfaction of

the trial court/competent authority as per law. They should maintain

peace and good behaviour during the period of bond and as and when

they are called upon during this period of probation they shall report

to the authority concerned.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands allowed and

disposed of.