Hira Singh and Others vs The State of Bihar

V.N. Sinha, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the State.

These three appeals arise out of judgment/order dated 04.03.1993, passed by Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 200/1991 whereunder the four appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 115 of 1993 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/149, 323 of the Penal Code with direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. No separate sentence has been awarded under Section 323 of the Penal Code. The two appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 166 of 1993 have been convicted for the offences under Section 302/149 and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. Appellant Raghunath Singh has further been convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the Penal Code but no separate sentence has been awarded thereunder. Sole appellant of Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 226 of 1993 has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Penal Code with direction to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of informant Meghnath Singh (P.W. 6), son of deceased Ram Bhajan Singh, recorded by A.S.I. Lal Babu Bhatt of Industrial Police Station, Hajipur on 29.04.1991 at 23.00 hours in the Emergency Ward of Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, is that on the same day at about 21.00 hours informant came to his house after attending his duty in the Railway Department and was engaged in chit-chat with his father Ram Bhajan Singh, meanwhile, his father came out of the house and proceeded towards the house of neighbour Baleshwar Singh, hearing alarm rushed there along with his brother Ramnath Singh (P.W. 5) and saw seven accused persons named in the fardbeyan surrounding his father. Sudama Singh and Mudhusudan Singh were armed with farsa, others were armed with lathi. Madhusudan Singh assaulted his father with farsa, as a result of which he fell down. There was profuse bleeding. Informant further claimed that Raghunath Singh also assaulted his father with lathi over his shoulder, Sudama Singh assaulted him with lathi portion of farsa. Informant also stated that the accused persons were his agnates, co-villagers. Motive behind the assault is also disclosed in the fardbeyan that there was long standing land dispute between the parties. Besides the informant, his brother (P.W. 5) three other persons have also been named in the fardbeyan as witness, namely, Rameshwar Singh (P.W. 1), Nandu Thakur and Tetar Rai (both not examined). After recording of the fardbeyan in Sadar Hospital, Hajipur, Dr. Salil Kumar Mishra of Sadar Hospital referred the injured to P.M.C.H. for better treatment where he succumbed to the injuries the day following. Inquest proceeding on the dead body was performed by the police officer of Pirbahore Police Station on 30.04.1991 at 19.15 hours. Post mortem was conducted on 31.05.1991 at 9.30 A.M. by Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 7) posted in the Department of Forensic, P.M.C.H. In the light of the fardbeyan, further statement of the informant (P.W. 6), police statement of his brother (P.W. 5) and other co-villagers named in the fardbeyan as also the contents of the inquest, post mortem report charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused persons named in the fardbeyan. In the light of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and after supply of police papers case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 24.03.1992 to which accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

In support of prosecution story prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 Rameshwar Singh, who is a co-villager and eye-witness of the occurrence named in the fardbeyan. P.W. 2 Mahesh Singh is also an eye-witness of the occurrence but not named in the fardbeyan. P.W. 3 Kunta Rajak is also a co-villager eye-witness but not named in the fardbeyan. P.W. 4 Nilu Kumari is the daughter of the deceased but not named in the fardbeyan as a witness. P.W. 5 Ramnath Singh is the brother of the informant and named in the fardbeyan as eye-witness. P.W. 6 Meghnath Singh is the informant of the case and son of the deceased. P.W. 7 Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh is the autopsy surgeon, who on the relevant date was serving in the Forensic Science Department of P.M.C.H.. P.W. 8 Dr. Salil Kumar Mishra is the doctor who attended the deceased in Hajipur Sadar Hospital soon after the assault and referred him to P.M.C.H. P.W. 9 Lal Babu Bhatt is not only the scribe of the fardbeyan but also the first Investigating Officer of the case. P.W. 10 Bidya Bhushan is also an Investigating Officer of the case who submitted charge-sheet.

Besides the prosecution witnesses defence also examined two witnesses, namely, D.W. 1 Naresh Sah, the neighbour of the accused persons, D.W. 2 Dr. Ram Sewak Singh a formal witness who proved medical report of Dr. Salil Kumar Mishra.

Learned counsel for the appellants assailed the conviction of the appellants on the ground that prosecution version, as narrated by P.W. 6 in the fardbeyan that Madhusudan Singh assaulted the deceased with farsa on his head, other accused persons, namely, Hira Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Vijoy Singh and Manoj Singh assaulted him with lathi, Raghunath assaulted the deceased with lathi on his hand and Sudama assaulted him with lathi portion of farsa, is not corroborated by the other witnesses, as according to him prosecution has deliberately chosen not to examine Nandu Thakur and Tetar Rai, the two co-villagers named in the fardbeyan as witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that even if this Court ignore the point of non-examination of the witnesses named in the fardbeyan as Rameshwar Singh, another co-villager named in the fardbeyan has been examined as P.W. 1 but his evidence also does not inspire confidence as the version which he narrated in his examination-in-chief is not fully corroborating the informant in the fardbeyan as also the version narrated by him in the court. It is also submitted by learned counsel that P.Ws. 5, 6 are not only the sons of the deceased but there being long standing land dispute between their father and the accused persons, the testimony of P.Ws. 5, 6 is required to be considered with circumspection and unless fully corroborated to the hilt by the evidence of independent witnesses, the version narrated by them may not be accepted. The version narrated by P.W. 1 may not be exactly supporting the version of the informant (P.W. 6) and his brother (P.W. 5) in meticulous detail but broadly the same does get corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 5. This finding we are inclined to render as the broad prosecution version narrated by the informant and the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of both the doctors i.e. P.W. 8 Dr. Salil Kumar Mishra, who initially examined the deceased and P.W. 7 Dr. Sunil Kumar Singh who conducted autopsy on the person of the deceased. The question, however, still arise that the prosecution story to the extent that Madhusudan Singh assaulted the deceased on his parietal region with farsa causing sharp cut injury on his head which was stitched by Dr. Mishra when he first attended on him in Hajipur Sadar Hospital, Raghunath Singh assaulted the deceased with lathi on his hand as corresponding injury is also found by both Dr. Mishra and the autopsy surgeon, besides from the medical evidence, we are also satisfied that Sudama Singh also caused injury on the person of the deceased with lathi portion of the deceased may be accepted as corroborated from the medical evidence of P.Ws. 8, 7. From the injury report of the deceased, it however, does not appear that any injury found on the person of the deceased can be attributed to Hira Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Vijoy Kumar Singh and Manoj Kumar Singh, appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 115 of 1993. Raghunath Singh, Sudama Singh, appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 166 of 1993 are attributed with the assault on the person of the deceased as Raghunath Singh is said to have assaulted the deceased with lathi on his hand, which is corroborated from the evidence of both the doctors. Similar is the position with regard to the overt act of assault made against appellant Sudama Singh as he has been found to have assaulted the deceased with lathi portion of farsa on his back. The assault on the deceased by Raghunath, Sudama Singh is not on the vital parts of his body, in the circumstances, they cannot be attributed that they also shared the object of Madhusudan to give effect to the occurrence, who led the assault on the deceased with farsa.

In the circumstances, while acquitting Raghunath Singh and Sudama Singh, appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 166 of 1993 of the charge under Sections 302/149 I.P.C., we convict them for the offence under Section 325 of the Penal Code. Similarly the conviction of Hira Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Vijay Singh and Manoj Singh, appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 115 of 1993 for the offence under Section 302/149 is also set aside, as we have found them not to have caused any assault/injury on the person of the deceased. Their conviction under Section 323 I.P.C. for the assault on the person of P.Ws. 6, 5 is, however, maintained.

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 226 of 1993 filed by appellant Madhusudan Singh is, however, dismissed, as the prosecution case that he assaulted the deceased on his parietal region causing his death has not only been proved by P.Ws. 6, 5 but also duly corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 8 and 7. His bail bond is cancelled with direction to surrender forthwith.

Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 115, 166 both of 1993 are allowed in part but the conviction of the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 115, 166 both of 1993 under Sections 323, 325 I.P.C. respectively is maintained. The appellants of both the appeals having remained on bail for over 20 years are directed to pay only fine of Rs. 8000, 12,000/- each respectively to the widow of the deceased and if she is not alive then to her sons P.Ws. 6, 5 or to their next of kin as early as possible, in any case, within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment in the court below.