Pratap Singh vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Abhay Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order of conviction dated 28.2.2011 passed by V.N. Prasad, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-1st, Supaul in S. Tr. No. 61/2000(s) & 102/2000(s) convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 147 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.5 has been convicted also u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code in place of sentencing them, ordered to execute Bond of Rs. 2,000/- each with one surety of like amount for maintaining peace and tranquility for one year under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The prosecution case in brief is that, the informant Ganesh Kumar gave a fardbeyan on 13.6.1999 stating therein that on the same day about 4:00 P.M., the appellants along with 8-10 other unknown persons armed with various weapons like arrows, bhala & farsa, came to his house and started assaulting the informant and Babita Kumari. In the alleged incident, the informant sustained injury above his right eye caused by arrow and his sister Babita Kumari got injury on his right leg and thereafter they were admitted in hospital. The alleged occurrence is said to be taken place in the background of previous quarrel with regard to plucking mung from disputed land which had occurred on the same day in morning.

On the basis of fardbeyan given by P.W.-9 Ganesh Kumar Singh, police registered a case as Birpur P.S. Case No. 85 of 1999 against the appellants/convicts. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. On the basis of evidence during investigation, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal.

The point to be considered in this appeal before this Court is whether the prosecution is able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants/convicts beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt or not.

Notably, against all the appellants, charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code but against appellant no.2, further charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

To substantiate the charge leveled against the appellants, altogether ten witnesses have been examined by the prosecution as P.W.-1 Chhataharu Paswan, P.W.-2 Awadhnath Singh, P.W.-3 Lakhan Paswan, P.W.-4 Nityanand Paswan, P.W.-5 Hirday Narayan Yadav, P.W.-6 Balram Sharma, P.W.-7 Saida Sharma, P.W.-8 Baldeo Yadav, P.W.-9 Ganesh Kumar Sharma (Informant) along with P.W.-10 Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha (doctor).

P.W.-1 Chhataharu Paswan (neighbour of the informant) supported the case of prosecution in his evidence and deposed that on the alleged date of occurrence the appellants armed with arrow, lathi, farsa & bhala and appellant no.2 Bir Bahadur Singh armed with pistol. The appellant no.2 Bir Bahadur Singh fired by his pistol but no one sustained injury. He further stated in his evidence that in the said incident, the informant sustained arrow injury on his eyebrow and informant’s sister Babita Kumar sustained injury in her right leg.

P.W.-2 Awadhnath Singh (father of the informant), P.W.-4 Nityanand Paswan, P.W.-5 Hriday Narayan Yadav as well as P.W.-7 Shaini Sharma have also supported the prosecution case and stated in their evidence that on the alleged date of occurrence, when they rushed to the residence of informant, they saw the informant Ganesh Singh causing arrow injury on his right eyebrow. They also stated that the incident took place over a dispute of plucking mung.

P.W.-3 Lakhan Paswan and P.W.-8 Baldeo Yadav are not eye witness to the alleged occurrence. P.W.-3 deposed in his evidence that he saw the police seizing arrows from the place of occurrence. P.W.-8 stated that he saw the appellants armed with lathi, farsa, bhala etc. going towards the house of the informant.

P.W.-9 Ganesh Kumar Singh, the informant himself, has deposed in his evidence and corroborated the facts of F.I.R.

P.W.-10 Ajay Kumar Jha (Doctor) was examined who stated that although he has not examined the injured but has identified the injury report in the pen and signature of his colleague Dr. Rajeshwar Goil who had examined the injured and injury reports are exhibited as exhibit 4 & 4/1. He stated the Ganesh Kr. Singh (informant) sustained two injuries on non-vital part, out of which one lacerated wound over right eyebrow and second was on right thigh. Nature of both injuries are simple. He further stated that Babita Kumari also received injury on her right leg caused by hard & blunt substance.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants argued that evidence of witnesses suffered from serious infirmities and contradictions, which makes their case highly doubtful, totally unreasonable and untrustworthy. In this case, Investigation Officer of the case was not examined and due to his non-examination, the defense caused prejudiced. It is desirable that prosecution has to examine the Investigation Officer. Learned counsel further submits that the P.W.-9 (informant) as well as Babita Kumari are alleged to have been received injury but the same are on non-vital part. During investigation, witnesses have stated that Babita Kumari has recived injury by brick-bat but no any brick-bat or stone was found from the place of occurrence by the police. The injured Babita Kumari has also not been examined as witness hence, adverse inference may be drawn.

Learned APP appearing on behalf of the state argued that the impugned judgment is based on cogent and consistent evidence, which is adduced by the prosecution witnesses. Doctor proved the injury report of P.W.-9 and injured Babita Kumari which is exhibited as ext.-4, 4/1. The defense failed to discredit the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellants by relying upon the evidence brought on record by the prosecution during trial. Therefore, no interference is required with the impugned judgment and order and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

I have gone through the entire prosecution evidence, documents, exhibits, medical report in respect of injury of P.W.-9 Ganesh Kr. Singh as well as Babita Kumari. The prosecution witnesses along with P.W.-9 (informant) have fully supported the case. From perusal of evidence of all the witnesses along with P.W.-9 (informant), proved the prosecution case in respect of manner of occurrence, place of occurrence and time of occurrence. In this case, it is apparent that I.O., who had conducted the investigation, was not examined but all the witnesses proved the prosecution case and due to non-examination of the I.O., the defense not caused prejudice. The doctor was examined as P.W.-10 who found injuries on the person of P.W.-9 and injured Babita Kumari.

After scrutinizing all the evidences, which are available on record and the impugned judgment of conviction, there is no need of interference in the said judgment. The impugned judgment is delivered on the basis of cogent and consistent evidence and the trial court had rightly convicted all the appellants under Sections 147 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant no.5 convicted also u/s 324 of the Indian Penal Code . This Court does not find any infirmity in the order impugned. Being the first offence committed by the appellants, trial court released all the appellants after giving them the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. I find no reason to disbelieve the judgment of conviction passed by the trial court.

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.