Dinesh Singh vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.N. Pathak, J.—This revision is directed against the judgment passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 312/91, whereby the learned Sessions Judge acquitted opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 of this revision.

The revisionist''s lawyer submitted that the learned Sessions Judge adopted a wrong approach to the whole case and his finding that there was inordinate delay in lodging the case was wrong. Learned Trial Court also failed to appreciate the evidence of P.Ws. properly. Interested-ness of particular witnesses may not be a ground for disbelieving their testimony. Contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. was not just as to touch the case on its material particulars. On these grounds it was submitted that the judgment of acquittal dated 28.7.99 passed by the Sessions Judge may be set aside.

On persual of the judgment of the trial court, it transpires that out of the witnesses examined P.W. 9 was the doctor, P.W. 10 was another doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, who was father of the informant. P.W. 4 Chandrasekhar Singh, P.W. 6 Hare Kisun Singh and P.W. 8 Sitaram Singh were all the sons of the deceased, who were the only eye-witnesses were declared hostile. Learned trial court said that evidence of these P.Ws. was discrepant inter se. Moreover, the trial court stated that one of the eye-witnesses said that the deceased was dragged and assaulted with denta etc., but the doctor did not find external or internal injury. So far the testimony of the witnesses it was in conflict with the medical evidence. The trial court further stated that as per the statement of the P.Ws., deceased was treated for 3-4 hours in the hospital, but the doctor said that he did within ten minutes of his arrival to the hospital. The doctor further said that the deceased died of cardiac failure and the patient was gasping a condition which might occur on account of chronic cough by use of ganja, cigarette etc. Dinesh Singh was the informant of the case who was also son of the deceased. P.W. 11 was the I.O. who prepared the inquest report, but he did not find any external injury upon the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence took place on 26.12.90 over a dispute for irrigation of fields of the informant and the accused. The dispute arose between the informant and the accused over irrigation of fields on 25.12.90. On 26.12.90 accused persons were carrying water from the canal through the field of the informant. Informant protested. Thereafter the accused persons appeared at the house of the informant and on the pretext of Panchayati he brought the informant out of his house. He was fisted and when the informant''s father came to his rescue he was also assaulted. When the informant wanted to go to the Police Station, one Shiv Nandan Singh promised to hold panchayati and settle the matter, but in the meantime, the condition of the deceased deteriorated and, therefore, he was brought to the hospital where he died. Dinesh Sinigh gave his fardbeyan on 26.12.90 at the State Dispensary. However, the occurrence had taken place in the morning of 26.12.90 and the Police Station is at a distance of 1 1/2 kms. only. The fardbeyan of Dinesh Singh (Ext-7) shows that the condition of the deceased had deteriorated at 2 P.M. and so he was brought to the State Dispensary for treatment where he succumbed to his injury after some time. Shiv Nandan Singh was examined as P.W. 5 and he was declared hostile. So, he did not support the case of the prosecution that he had promised to hold panchayati and therefore the informant''s family were delayed in bringing the deceased to the hospital. It was the plea of the informant that he wanted to get his father treated locally and so there was delay. If the condition of the deceased was serious on account of the assault, the probabilities were that he should have been brought to the hospital immediately for his treatment instead of waiting till 2 P.M. So, circumstances of this case would indicate that there was no serious injury at all upon the person of the deceased on account of the alleged assault which could result into his death. The trial court has taken notice of this'' fact and he has stated that medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution that the deceased died of assault given by the accused of this case. P.S. was admittedly one and half kilometers from the place of occurrence and, so, the informant and his family were supposed to go to the police station or to the State Dispensary immediately after the occurrence. Delayed information to the police or delayed dispatch of the deceased to the hospital was, therefore, of course, not explained by the circumstances of this case. Of course, there was not inordinate delay, but the delay in the circumstances remained unexplained. In such circumstances, the interestedness of P.Ws. became a significant aspect of the case and if the trial court disbelieved their evidence, I do not think that there is any illegality committed by the trial court.

The judgment of the trial court which I have discussed above shows that the order of acquittal was recorded on the grounds that the evidence of interested P.Ws. was discrepant inter se, delay in lodging the case was not explained and that there was no internal or external injury upon the deceased and all these circumstances were sufficient to give benefit of doubt to the accused. None of these findings was vitiated by illegality or irregularity. So I do not think there is a good case before this Court for interfering, in revision, with the judgment passed by the trial court.

In the result, this revision is dismissed and the judgment of the trial court is confirmed.