Hare Ram Bouri vs State Of West Bengal & Ors

Tirthankar Ghosh, J

The revisional application has been preferred against the judgement order dated 7.01.2006 wherein the learned Additional and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Purulia in Criminal Appeal No.12 of 2004 was pleased to acquit all the accused persons by reversing the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Purulia. It is seen from the records of the case that the learned Judicial Magistrate, 4th Court, Purulia, on conclusion of the case convicted the accused persons under Sections 147/149/323/324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3(three) months each for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for 3 (three) months each for the offence under Section 323/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each with fine of rupees 250 in default simple imprisonment for another 15 days.

The instant case arose out of a complaint filed by one Hare Ram Bouri with Arsha Police Station, pursuant to which Arsha Police Station Case No. 30 of 2001 dated 3.06.2001 was registered for investigation under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case in short is that at about 11 a.m. on 3.06.2001 the complainant and others went to demarcate their purchased land by measuring the same with the aid of an amin and after measurement the said land was demarcated by placing stones at the boundary of the land. At that time the accused persons came there and started lifting the said stones and threw them away. The complainant and his nephew Debabrata Bouri then tried to pacify the matter, but suddenly Rabindranath Mahato caught the complainant from behind and Muchiram hit the complainant at his back by stone and Ranjit Mahato gave a blow of axe on his forehead. Complainant also saw that Bibhuti Mahato got hold of Debabrata Bouri and Pandit Mahato assaulted him at his head by tabla. Accused persons fled away from the spot and complainant thereafter had no other option but to file the complaint with the police authorities

On completion of Investigation the investigating officer of the case submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/323/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned Magistrate on perusal of the materials relied upon by the prosecution under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and hearing the accused persons was pleased to frame charge under Sections 148/149/323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was thereafter read over and explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The learned Magistrate after conclusion of the prosecution evidence was pleased to examine the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and thereafter called upon the defence whether they were interested in examination of witnesses in support of their case. The defence having refused to examine any witness the learned Magistrate was pleased to fix date for arguments. After hearing the arguments advanced by both the parties the learned Magistrate was pleased to hold the accused persons guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 147/149/323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them as above.

It is seen from the records of the case that prosecution relied upon eight witnesses and also relied upon number of documents to prove its case. However the defence did not examine any witness nor relied upon any document to rebut the prosecution case.

It is reflected from the judgement of the courts below that 8 witnesses were examined namely Hare Ram Bouri the de-facto complainant (PW-1), Anil Chandra Mahato(PW-2), Goutam Hazra an independent witness (PW-3), Fuchu Bouri (PW-4), Sasadhar Mahato (PW-5), Dr. Sandeep Sethi who examined the victim(PW-6), Debabrata Bouri one of the victim and eye witness to the incident (PW-7) and S.I. Jayguru Mondal the investigating officer (PW-8). It is seen from the evidence that PW-1 reached the plot of land and the place of occurrence when the measurement was completed and he in the complaint stated that Rabindra Nath Mahato caught hold of him from his back side and as such when he was assaulted he did not fell down immediately, he also stated that the accused persons went to the police station and they were also treated at Sirkabad Hospital on the same day. PW-2 deposed that he had heard that Hare Ram Bouri sustained injury and he also saw him in injured condition but he did not hear the name of the assailants. According to PW-3 he went to the place of occurrence when the parties were throwing and pelting stones against each other, he failed to give description of the place where the incident took place. PW-4 stated that Ranjit assaulted Hare Ram and in cross-examination he stated that he saw the incident from a distance of 100 cubits from the place of occurrence. PW-5 deposed he knew nothing about the incident. PW-6 the Doctor deposed that he found small cut on the bridge of the nose, tenderness on the right inferior scapular region, in Cross-examination he deposed that he did not note cutting or thrashing of hair ball, he also opined that injury by axe shall always be straight but never be sickle shaped. PW-7 an eye witness deposed that after measurement, stone was placed in the land for demarcation and the accused person threw away the stones from the land, in cross-examination he stated a different plot number and failed to describe the difference between axe and tabla.

I have perused the judgments delivered by the learned Magistrate as well as that of the Appellate Court, I find that the learned Magistrate without going into the specific evidence deposed by the prosecution witnesses, started to discuss and substantiate the points which he raised for determination. The learned Appellate Court after taking into account the relevant evidence of all the witnesses categorically pointed out the difference and contradictions appearing in the evidence.

I find that the Appellate Court while arriving at its conclusion categorically observed that PW-1 described the plot of land as No.1622 while PW-7 stated the plot of land as No.1594. The Appellate Court also categorically observed that the deposition of PW-4 is contradictory to that of PW-1, 2 and 3 while PW-4 has stated that Ranjit Mahato assaulted Hare Ram Bouri PW-1, deposed that Rabindranath Mahato caught him from behind while Muchiram hit at his back by stone and Ranjit gave blow with axe at his forehead. The learned Appellate Court also took into account that most of the witnesses are interested witnesses but they themselves have contradicted each other by deposing that minor incident occurred, regarding the person who have assaulted the victim, regarding the plot of land, as well as regarding the ownership of the plots which were alleged to be demarcated with the aid of amin.

I find from the judgment of the learned Magistrate that although the learned Magistrate has sentenced the accused person. Yet he did not state the sections for which the sentence of suffering rigorous imprisonment for 6 months each with fine of rupees 250 in default simple imprisonment for another 15 days was imposed. The learned Appellate Court also took the same into consideration and thereafter gave a specific finding that the learned Magistrate was not specific about the sentence for each of sections for which the accused were held guilty and there is no reflection in the judgment to that effect.

The learned Appellate Court also categorically opined that the Trial Court failed to scan the evidence of the doctor carefully and erroneously arrived at its finding of guilt and thereafter convicted the accused persons. I have gone through the observations, material contradictions pointed out by the Appellate Court and the reasons assigned in support of the acquittal wherein the learned Sessions Court/Appellate Court was of the opinion that the judgement and order of conviction and sentence suffered from illegality and impropriety and as such was pleased to allow the appeal of the accused persons/petitioners (herein) and set aside the order of conviction and sentence.

I find that the approach of the Appellate Court was founded on reasons, logical findings as also factual interpretation based on the evidence deposed by the witnesses in Court supported by the opinion of the medical expert.

In view of the observations made above I do not find any illegality in the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Appellate Court as such the judgement and order dated 7.01.2006 passed in Criminal Appeal No.12/2004 is hereby affirmed.

The revisional application being CRR No.689 of 2006 is dismissed.

The Department is directed to communicate the order to the Court below.

Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgement, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.