Pravin Mandal vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—Though four persons including appellant were put on trial, the appellant alone suffered conviction u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. Though the appellant had also been charged u/s 27 of the Arms Act but on that account, he was acquitted of the charges. Basic features of the prosecution case are that in the evening hours on 2nd April, 1986, while Gholti Mandal (P.W. 1) was guarding field alongwith his mother and wife, appellant came alongwith Gullo Mandal, Shiv Nath Mandal, and Biseshwar Mandal holding arms, and on some sort of exhortation made by Gullo Mandal, they fired shots, but the aim was lost. The alarms raised by him attracted villagers who gave a good chase but none of them could be apprehended they having escaped towards diara. The genesis of incident that was assigned by the State was that in panchayati that was convened in village to discuss the issue of questionable relationship of the appellant with Sangita Kumari, the appellant had been reprimanded who having taken the same as an onslaught, took recourse to violence. A Police case had been registered on the day of incident at Nathnagar Police Station on behest of Gholti Mandal, the victim. As usual, investigation commenced in course of which Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses and on conclusion of investigation laid charge-sheet before the Court.

Defence of the appellant was that of innocence and false implication for no good reason. Defence, however, had not chosen to examine any witness at trial. At trial the State examined altogether five witnesses and while last witness was quite formal in nature, which did not merit consideration, three witnesses, namely, Suresh Mandal (P.W. 2), Pramtia Devi (P.W. 3), and Ramswaroop Mandal (P.W. 4) had turned volte face to the State, and while Pramila Devi (P.W. 3) altogether expressed her ignorance about incident, Suresh Mandal (P.W. 2) and Ramswaroop Mandal (P.W. 4) stated to have heard about incident of firing without disclosing complicity of the appellant. Now prosecution is left with the solitary testimony of Gholti Mandal (P.W. 1) who states that while he was guarding the field, his mother and wife too were in his company, but apart from the fact that the wife had not chosen to lend assurance to the accusations attributed to the appellant as alleged by her husband, mother, who was shown to be ocular witness, was not examined at trial. In all fairness, State was left with the testimony of the victim which was without corroboration even from his family members who were suggested to be ocular witnesses of the incident. It looks quite unlikely that even wife, had the incident been true, would turn hostile to her husband in lending assurance to the accusation attributed to the appellant by him. Since the Investigating Officer was not examined at trial, admittedly many questions remained unanswered. There has been no finding about seizure of pellet from the place of occurrence and I do feel that it was quite hazardous to place reliance on the uncorroborated testimony of Gholti Mandal and record conviction. In the circumstances regard being had to the evidences placed on the record, finding of the trial court recording verdict of guilt and also sentence against the appellant in the manner stated above are set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appeal accordingly succeeds. Appellant is discharged from liability of the bail bonds.