Narain Sahni and Others vs The State of Bihar

Indu Prabha Singh, J.—The appellant No. 1, Narayan Sahani, 2, Bhikhar Sahani, 3, Janki Sahani, they all have been convicted under Sections 148, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code (short the IPC) and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 307, IPC and one year under Sections 379, IPC and six months u/s 148, IPC. The appellant 4 Jung Bahadur Sahani and 5, Sukhal Sahani, they were convicted under Sections 307,147 and 323 of the IPC and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years u/s 307, IPC three months u/s 323 and six months u/s 379, IPC. However, all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

The prosecution case in short is that the informant gave his fardbeyan at Chakiya State Dispensary on 20.2.1982 at 12.30 hours before the police alleging inter alia, that on 19.2.1982, he had gone to sugar-cane field situated at Bara Sareh at 4 p.m. He saw all the accused persons were making bundles of his "Khar" the informant enquired as to why they were making bundles of his "Khar" thereupon all the appellants started abusing the informant and uttered to kill him. Then the appellant No. 1 Narayan Sahani gave a Farsa and appellant No. 3 Janki Sahni and appellant No. 2 Bhikhar Sahani gave Bhala and Farsa-blow. It has been alleged that the appellant Janki Sahani was carrying Bhala and he gave Bhala-blow on the leg and abdomen of the informant. The appellant Bhikhar Sahani was armed with Farsa and he gave a Farsa-blow on the hand and head or the informant. The other appellant Jung Bahadur Sahani and Sukhal Sahani were also armed with lathi and they assaulted the informant with lathi.

It has been stated that the witnesses Ekwal Sah (P.W. 3), Pyare Sahani (P.W. 2) and Sadhu Das, the villagers were there and they saw the occurrence. It has also been alleged that when the brother of the informant learnt about the occurrence, he came to the place of occurrence and he with the help of P.W. 1 Sadhu Das and Ekwal Sah took the injured to his house, from where he was taken to the hospital and was treated by the medical officer, P.W. 5.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant the police registered Pipra P.S. Case No. 20 of 1982 dated 21.2.1982 and a formal FIR was drawn up, which is Ext. 4. The police after completition of investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellants. Accordingly the cognizance was taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Motihari and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty.

The prosecution in support of its case examined altogether six witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sadhu Das, P.W. 2 is Pyare Sahani, P.W. 3 is Ramekbal Sah, P.W. 4 is Alha Sahani, the informant, P.W. 5 is Dr. Laxman Chaubey, the Medical Expert, who has examined the injured informant. P.W. 6 is Mangal Prasad Keshari, a formal witness. He has proved the first informant report, P.W. 3 although he is eye-witness, but he has not fully supported the prosecution case. According to him he saw only the accused Narayan Sahani on the place of occurrence assaulting the informant with Farsa on his head. He has clearly stated that he did not see other accused persons on the place of occurrence. In the cross-examination he has stated that he fled away just seeing the blood from the place of occurrence. P.W. 4, the informant has fully supported the case of the prosecution as stated in the First Informant Report. According to him on the date of occurrence he went to see his sugar cane plants in Bara Sareh and he saw all the appellants were making bundles of "Khar" and when he protested, all the appellants abused him and uttered that he would be killed. Thereafter, the appellant Narayan Sahani gave three Farsa blow on his head and appellant Bhikhar Sahani also gave three Farsa blow on his face and appellant Janki Sahani gave Bhala blow on his abdomen towards left side and also to his leg. He has also stated that the appellant Jung Bahadur Sahani gave lathi blow by which his finger was broken, thereafter, the appellant Sukhal Sahanj gave lathi blow on his back and leg, Having sustained injuries he cried and fell down. Thereafter the witnesses took him to Chakia Hospital, where he was treated. The police came there and his fardbeyan was recorded in the hospital. According to him the field in which the occurrence took place was coming in his possession from the time of his ancestors. According to him the accused persons took away the Kher of five Kathas of the field. In his cross-examination he has stated that the field in which the occurrence took place were belonged to his grand father as per the Khatian, but he could not say the Khata number of that field. He has also denied that he has no knowledge that the accused Narayan Sahani has field any title suit in the Court of Munsif with regard to the field of place of occurrence against his father and the same was decided against his father. The other witnesses P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 they all have supported the version of the informant and they stated that the appellants assaulted the informant and thereafter, he was taken to hospital where he was treated.

P.W. 5, the Medical expert Dr. Laxman Chaubey examined the injured on 19.2.1982 at 1.30 p.m. and found the following injuries on the person of the injured.

(i) Incised wound bleeding on head 2" � 1/2" � 1/4" � bone deep on right side of head.

(ii) Incised wound bleeding wound 2" 0215 1/4" � bone deep on right side of head.

(iii) incised bleeding wound 1" � 1/4" � muscle deep on top of head.

(iv) Incised bleeding wound 1" � 1/4" � muscle deep on back of head.

(v) Incised bleeding wound 1 1/2" � 1/4" � muscle deep on left side head.

(vi) Incised bleeding wound 1 1/2" � 1/4" � muscle deep on back of head towards left side.

(vii) One stab injury 1" deep � 1/4" � 1/4" on right left in the middle.

(viii) One stab injury 1/4" � 1/4" � muscle deep on left side of abdomen.

(ix) Painful swelling 2" � 2" on right elbow.

(x) Multiple contusions eight in numbers on back.

According to the opinion of the doctor injury No. 1 to 6 were grievous and rest of the injuries were simple in nature, injury No. 1 to 8 were having by sharp cutting weapon may be Bhala and garsa and the rest of the injuries were by hard blunt substance. According to him injury on head and abdomen were dangerous to life.

Earned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case there are contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses. It has been further submitted that the I.O. of this case has not been examined, which has prejudiced the case of the defence. So far the contradictions in the deposition of the witnesses are concerned, those contradictions are not major contradictions. The other submission of the earned Counsel for the appellant is that the I.O. was not examined, but the factum of occurrence that the informant was assaulted by the appellants has been supported by all the witnesses. They have also supported that the informant after sustaining injury was taken to hospital where he was examined and treated by the doctor. The doctor P.W. 5 has also corroborated the injuries on the person of the informant, as such non-examination of the I.O. has not prejudice the case of the prosecution. It appears from the deposition of the doctor P.W. 5 that there were ten injuries on the person of the injured informant including cut and piercing on the abdomen. It has also been stated by the Medical expert that the injury No. 1 to 6 were grievous in nature and were also dangerous to life.

The Court below considering the facts that the injuries were on vital part of the body rightly come to the conclusion and convicted the appellants for the offences punishable u/s 307, IPC. Since all the appellants came in a group having variously armed with deadly weapon like Garasa Bhala and lathi and assaulted the informant as such they were rightly convicted by the Court below of the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323 and 379, IPC. I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Court below. Coming to the question of sentence, earned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the occurrence took place in 1982 about 20 years and since then the appellants have been amply harassed and punished during the prolonged litigation, there is no criminal antecedent and previous conviction against them and they have remained in jail for some time and there was a land dispute between the parties.

Considering the submission of the earned Counsel for the appellants and in the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that it will be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence often years imposed by the Court below to the appellants is reduced to the period of five years each.

With the aforesaid modification in the sentence, this appeal is dismissed.