PURAN SINGH AND OTHER vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.11.2003 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast

Track Court No.5, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No.152 of 1998 arising out of Baliapur P.S. Case No.42 of 1995 (dated 24.06.1995) corresponding to

G.R. No.2281 of 1995 whereby all the appellants have been convicted by the learned trial court. So far as the appellant no.2, Babulal Singh is

concerned, he has been convicted for the offence under Sections 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and the other appellants, namely, Puran Singh,

Ayan Singh, Sarwan Singh, Motilal Singh, Keshav Singh and Bhuchung Singh are conerned, they have been convicted for the offence under Sections

147/323 of the Indian Penal Code, but all the accused persons/appellants have been acquitted by the learned trial court for the offene under Section

149/307 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian

Penal Code and RI for 2 years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code so far accused/appellant no.2, Babulal Singh is concerned.

So far the other convicts/appellants are concerned, they have been sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 323 of the Indian Penal

Code and six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution case, as per the 'fardbeyan' of the

informant, Basudeo Rai (P.W.6) recorded by Sub Inspector of Police, Rajendra Singh, Baliapur Police Station at Baliapur at 13.00 hours wherein the

informant has stated that on 24.06.1995, at around 6.00 a.m., while the informant and his brothers, Bharat, Mathura and Prayag were ploughing the

filed, in the meantime their agnates, namely, Babulal Singh, Jagarnath Singh (deceased), Puran Singh, Ayan Singh, Sarwan Singh, Motilal Singh,

Keshav Singh and Bhuchung Singh came there armed with lathi and tangi and started abusing them and also asked not to plough the field since the

lands belongs to them, upon which, the accused persons became furious and thereafter, Babulal Singh assaulted the informant (Basudeo Rai) through

tangi, Puran Singh assaulted the informant by lathi causing bleeding injury on the head and injury on the person of the informant. It is further alleged by

the informant that the accused persons also assaulted brothers of the informant, Bharat Rai and Prayag Rai by lathi and tangi. Bharat Rai has

sustained injury on the right, arm and chest. Mathur Rai sustained injury on the right hand and the right leg, Prayag Rai sustained injury on the right

hand and right leg, but no specific allegation has been made so far as these injuries have been caused upon the brothers of the informant. It is further

stated that on raising alarm, co-villagers, Jitu Gope, Kalu Gope, and Chotu Singh and Ors. came there and they pacified them and they have witnessed

the occurrence and they will say about the occurrence. The informant has said that the land in question belongs to them since they are cultivating

since long and as such, the accused persons have no share.

On the basis of the 'fardbeyan' of the informant, Basudeo Rai, the Police registered Baliapur P.S. Case No.42 of 1995 (dated 24.06.1995) under

Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

After investigation of the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet vide Charge-sheet No.36 of 1995 dated 30th June, 1995 against all the accused

persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 341 of the Indian Penal Code.

Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 1.04.1998. Charge has been

framed against all the accused persons on 01.06.2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused

persons/appellants pleaded not guilty and thus, they were put on trial.

The prosecution in order to substantiate the case, has examined altogether 7 witnesses. Chotu Singh has been examined as P.W.1. This witness has

stated during cross-examination in chief that on alarm, he reached the place of occurrence and saw that blood was oozing from the head of the

witness and further stated that he did not see any person fleeing from there. This witness has identified the accused person in the court and admits

that the accused persons are agnates. This witness has denied about the injury caused upon Babu Lal and others and the counter-case filed by Babu

Lal against Mathur, Bharat and Basu and others.

Talo Gope has been examined as P.W.2. This witness has stated that 6 years ago in the morning at 6.00 a.m., while he was going to paddy filed, he

saw Mathur, Bharat, Prayag and Basu were ploughing their bari and thereafter Babu Lal, Moti Lal Singh, Aaine Singh, Jagannath Singh, Bhuchung

Singh came there and started assaulting. This witness has stated that Babulal Singh assaulted Basu Rai through tangi on the head and other 7 accused

persons assaulted 3 brothers, Bharat, Prayag and Mathur causing injuries. Mathur Singh sustained fracture injury on his hand and also found injury on

his knee. Prayag sustained injury on the head and right hand. Bharat has sustained injury on the chest. He further stated that Basudeo Rai has

sustained injury by tangi on the head due to which blood was oozing. This witness has said that place of occurrence is of Mathur Singh. This witness,

during cross-examination, at Paragraph-9 has stated that he has no knowledge that place of occurrence is recorded in the joint name of ancestors. He

has admitted at Paragraph 14 of the cross-examination that for the same occurrence, he has also been made accused in a false case, but he has not

sustained any injury, as stated in paragraph 16 of his cross-examination. This witness has further stated that after 10-12 days of the occurrence, the

Police came to the village, but did not seize any articles. This witness at para-20 of his cross-examination, has stated that Babulal has not sustained

any injury nor he has said that Babulal has been treated in the hospital. This witness has further stated that there was no dispute with respect to the

land in between the parties. This witness has further stated that he has witnessed the injury of oozing bleeding injury on Basudeo Rai and Babulal was

standing at some distance.

Sri Bharat Rai has been examined as P.W.3. He is an injured witness and is the brother of the informant. This witness has stated that while they

were ploughing their field, Babulal went there and asked them not to plough. When they asked for the reason on which assault took place. Babulal

assaulted Basudeo Rai on head causing bleeding injury. This witness was assaulted by Ayan Singh through lathi, causing injury on the chest in the left

side. Puran Singh assaulted Mathur Rai by lathi and Prayag Rai was assaulted by Sarwan Singh by means of lathi on his hand causing injury. Â On

raising hullah, co-villagers, Kalo Gope, Jitu Gope and Chotu Singh came and thereafter the accused persons fled away. This witness during cross-

examination, admitted that the accused persons are their agnates, but their land have been partitioned. Some of the land are purchased one and some

of the land is ancestors and partition was made of the landed property before his birth. This witness has further stated that disputed land is purchased

one and the same has been taken by the BCCL and the notice has been issued against all the persons. This witness has further admitted that a false

case has been instituted by the accused persons. This witness has stated that statement was recorded by the Police at the Hospital.

Mathur Rai has been examined as P.W.4. This witness is one of the injured witness and is brother of the informant who has supported the

prosecution case, stating that Babulal assaulted Basudeo Rai by means of tangi on his head. This witness, Mathur Rai has been assaulted by Puran

Singh on the right hand and right leg. Bharat Rai was assaulted by Gyan Singh on the left side of the chest. Shravan Singh assaulted by means of lathi

on his hand. This witness has further stated that after the incident took place, they went to the Police Station and thereafter they were examined by

the Doctors. During crossexamination, this witness has also admitted that accused persons are their agnates and the disputed land has not been

acquired by the BCCL nor they have been paid compensation. This witness has also admitted that a case has been instituted with an allegation that

they have been assaulted by Babulal Singh and others which is pending in the court for the same date of occurrence and the same has been instituted

for their own defence. This witness has further stated that Babulal Singh and Puran Singh have not been examined in the hospital. This witness has

sustained fractured injury on his hand and on his feet.

Prayag Rai has been examined as P.W.5 who is ananother injured of the case being brother of the informant. This witness has also stated that

Babulal assaulted Basudev Rai by tangi on his head. Paryag Singh has assaulted Mathur Rai by means of lathi and he was assaulted by Shrawan

Singh by means of lathi on his head, right arm and leg. Motilal also assaulted Basudeo by means of lathi on his right hand. On raising alarm, co-

villagers, Lalo, Jito and Chotu came and they pacified the accused persons. This witness has said that he was medically examined by the Doctor. At

Para-9 of his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the disputed land is a joint property in which Gopi Rai, Uday, Swapan Rai and Sadan Rai

have also share, but could not say about the dimension of the land. This witness has also stated that the land has not been acquired by the BCCL nor

any notice has been issued. This witness has further admitted that deed paper of the land stands recorded in the name of his father and uncles and the

same has been purchased by his uncle and father from Bowri Singh on 07.07.1958 which has been marked as Exhibit -3 with objection as this witness

was examined on recall on 25.03.2003.

Basudeo Rai, informant and injured of this case has been examined as P.W.6. This witness has stated that on 24.06.1995 in the morning at 6.00

a.m. while the informant along with his brothers, Mathur, Bharat and Prayag were ploughing the filed, the accused persons Babulal Singh, Puran

Singh, Motilal Singh, Ayan Singh, Sarwan Singh, Bhuchung Singh, Keshav Singh, Jagarnath Singh came there and asked them not to plough the field,

when the informant claimed the land by saying that they will plough the same. Thereafter Babulal assaulted him by means of tangi on his head. Puran

Singh assaulted him by means of lathi on his hand, causing fracture on right arm and since the other accused persons assaulted Mathur, Prayag and

Bharat Rai causing fracture of Mathur Rai and injury on both the knees of the witness. Bharat Rai sustained injury on the chest, left hand and on both

knees. Prayag has sustained injury on the head and the entire body which has been caused by lathi. When neighbours, Chotu Singh, Jitu Gope, Kalu

Gope and others came, they saved them and they have witnessed the occurrence. This witness has further stated that disputed land is a big plot and

they will produce the document, if so required and also the paper of treatment. This witness has admitted that accused, Jagarnath Singh has died, but

others are alive. During cross-examination, this witness has also admitted that Babulal Singh is his agnate and further admitted that Babulal Singh has

also filed a case against him for the occurrence of the same date in which this witness and Prayag Rai, Mahtur Rai, Babulal Rai, Gobardhan Gope,

Kalu Gope are the accused persons. This witness has further stated that he has no knowledge whether the land in question has been acquired by the

BCCL or not nor he has any knowledge that the same land has been acquired under the L.A. Reference Case No.25 of 1991 which has been

compromised between the parties. During cross-examination, this witness has stated that after sustaining injury, he went to the Police Station, his

statement was recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police at Baliapur Hospital in the noon hour at 1.00 p.m. He proved his signature of the 'fardbeyan'

and marked the same as Exhibit-1, but the signatures of other brothers were not there. This witness has further stated that blood-stained clothes were

given to the Police, but he has no knowledge whether the Police has seized or not. This witness has further stated that he could not say that which

accused has assaulted whom by how many lathies nor he can say that who was assaulted. This witness has said that he was saved by Kalu Gope,

Chotu Singh and Jitu Gope.

Dr. Jitendra Kumar, Medical Officer, Primary Hospital, Baliapur has been examined as P.W.7. This witness has stated that on 25.06.1995, while

he was posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Baliapur, on Police requisition, he examined Basudeo Rai and found (i) incised wound

2â€X1/2â€X1/2â€. There was profuse bleeding due to cut of artery. The patient was shocked due to hemorrhage. (ii) Swelling 2â€x1†on the right

wrist. The injury no.1 has been caused by sharp-cutting object and grievous in nature. So far as injury no.2 is caused by hard blunt substance and

simple in nature. On the same day, he examined Bharat Rai and found two injuries. (I) swelling 1â€x1/2†and (ii) 1â€x1/2†on the chest. Nature of

all the injuries were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substances such as lathi.

This witness has also examined Mathur Rai on the same day and found three injuries :-(i) Fracture of one bone of right forearm (ii) Swelling of right

knee of 2â€x2†and (iii) Swelling of left knee of 2â€x1â€. Injury no.1 is grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury nos.2 and 3 are

simple caused by hard and blunt substance.

This witness has also examined Prayag Rai on the same day and found four injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound of 1â€x1/2â€x1/2' over the right side of

forearm (ii) Haemotoma 2½â€x1†swelling on the arm (iii) Swelling of 1â€x1†on the right leg (iv) Swelling on the left shoulder of 2½â€x2â€

and found all the injuries simple in nature caused by heard and blunt substances. This witness has proved the injury reports and marked as Exhts.2,

2/1, 2/2 and 2/3. During crossexamination, this witness has admitted that he has not mentioned that injury no.1 of Basudeo Rai is entry cut nor he has

mentioned that such injury was caused on the head. This witness has further admitted that without any 'X-ray' of fracture injury, he has given the

report, but he could not say which bone of right fore-arm has got fractured. This witness has also proved the injury of accused, Jagarnath Singh and

Babulal Singh and the same has been marked as Ext. x & y for identification, but has said that he cannot say who has issued such injury reports as on

that day there were four medical officers in that Primary Health Centre at Baliapur.

The accused persons were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 12.09.2003 wherein they have denied about the assault caused on the victims.

Santu Rai has been examined as defence witness. This witness has stated that he knows both the sides and the land of Plot No.81, area 1 acre 49

decimals is recorded in the name of Sukhlal Singh which was being cultivated by the accused persons with respect to only 37 decimals as the same is

their ancestral property. This witness has further stated that the land is joint property of both the prosecution party and the accused persons.

Learned trial court after hearing the parties, convicted the appellants vide impugned judgment dated 25.11.2003. Appellant, Babulal Singh has been

convicted for the offence under Sections 148/324 of the Indian Penal Code and rest of the appellants, namely, Puran Singh, Ayan Singh, Sarwan

Singh, Motilal Singh, Keshav Singh and Bhuchung Singh have been convicted for the offence under Sections 147/323 of the Indian Penal Code, but the

learned trial court has acquitted all the accused persons from the charge under Sections 149/307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. P. K. Mukhopadhyay, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that admittedly there is land dispute in between the parties and there is a

countercase with respect to the same occurrence being Baliapur P.S. Case No.41 of 1995 (G.R. No.2280 of 1995). He has further submitted that I.O.

has not been examined in this case which has caused serious prejudice to the case of the prosecution as the appellants were not given opportunity to

cross-examine the investigating officer with respect to the place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and the injuries sustained by Jagarnath Singh,

Puran Singh and Babulal Singh which has been brought on record.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that First Information Report being Baliapur P.S. Case No.41 of 1995 has been marked

as Exhibit -1 and the charge-sheet vide No.36 of 1995 has been marked as Exhibit -B in the present Sessions trial.

Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the judgment reported in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Mishrilal (dead) and Ors., reported in

2003(9) SCC 426, the case and the counter-case ought to have been tried together so as not to have conflicting judgment for the same occurrence, but

in this case, the learned trial court has only tried the present case and the case of Baliapur P.S. Case No.41 of 1995 has not been jointly tried with the

present case.

Learned counsel has further submitted that the prosecution case brought by Basudeo Rai never speaks or discloses about the injury sustained by

Jagarnath Singh, Puran Singh and Babulal Singh and in view of the judgment in the case of Subramanyam and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, as

reported in 2002 (7) SCC 210 leads to failure on the part of the prosecution to explain injury on accused even though injuries were simple in nature and

does not leave the prosecution of its obligation, the Court can draw interference that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the

occurrence. In such background, the benefit of doubt be given to the accused/appellants as the case is of the year 1995 and they have faced rigour of

trial for more than 22 years with respect to land dispute.

Mr. Vikash Kishore Prasad, learned counsel for the State submits that there is no infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment as the witnesses

have corroborated the evidence and the injuries have also been corroborated by the Doctor.

So far the appellants, namely, Puran Singh and Motilal Singh are concerned, as per the affidavit pursuant to the order dated 18.01.2018, stating

therein that both of them have died during the pendency of the appeal and as such, their appeal stands abated.

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, it appears that parties are agnates and there is a case and counter case in between the

parties. The present occurrence took place 22 years ago between agnates with respect to land dispute. The appellant- Babulal Singh has been

convicted by the learned trial court for the offence under Section 148 read with Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for assaulting Basudev Rai

(P.W.6- informant), injured of the case and awarded rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 324 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for one

year under Section 148 I.P.C. The injuredBasudev Rai (P.W.6) has been examined by Dr. Jitendra Kumar (P.W.7) who has found the injury to be

grievous in nature caused by sharp-cut weapon which corroborates the statement of P.W.6 (Basudev Rai), informant and injured of the case.

The appellant- Babulal Singh was aged about 46 years during the trial which concluded in the year 2003 and now more than 14 years have elapsed

and he is now aged about 60 years.

Considering the nature of allegation, injury, period of litigation (22 years) as well as relationship between the parties, I am of the opinion that the

conviction of the appellant- Babulal Singh is upheld with modification in the sentence on the aforesaid grounds. The bail of the appellant- Babulal Singh

is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment in the

learned trial court as sentence of RI for 2 years under Section 324 I.P.C. and RI for 1 year under Section 148 I.P.C. are modified as period already

undergone on condition to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) to the informant/victim. 24. So far the other appellants, namely, Ayan

Singh, Sarwan Singh, Keshav Singh and Bhuchung Singh, they were convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. for six months and under Section 323 I.P.C.

of rigorous imprisonment for six months. Considering the evidence as against these persons, their sentence are reduced to the period already

undergone.

With the aforesaid observations, the instant appeal stands is dismissed with modification in the sentence, as stated above.

Let a copy of the judgment be communicated to the concerned trial court and L.C.R. be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith.