Raj Govind Singh vs State Of Bihar

Heard Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel on behalf of the appellants and Anita Kumari Singh, learned APP appearing for the state.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction dt. 27.2.2006 and order of sentence dt. 4.3.2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.-III, Buxar, in Sessions Trial Nos. 784/1992 and 208/2002, whereby and whereunder the appellants/convicts were convicted u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years for the offences punishable u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 11.10.1991 at about 6 P.M., the informant was sitting with his children on the upper floor of his house then he heard his wife crying. When the informant went to the ground floor, he saw that the appellant Ram Dhani Singh was attacking his wife with a lathi. He tried to save his wife but Ramdhani Singh also assaulted him on the head by means of lathi. In the meantime, accused Raj Govind Singh having lathi in his hand and Champa Devi having bhala in her hand, came and started assaulting the informant. The informant was also assaulted by the Ramdhani Singh by means of knife. After this the informant closed the gate of his house from inside and locked himself. In the said incident, the informant, his wife and his uncle Tej Narayan Singh sustained injuries. The alleged incident has been committed by the accused persons in the background of land dispute.

On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.-4), an FIR was registered on 11.10.1991 as Murar P.S. Case No. 32 of 1991. After completion of investigation, investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellants/ convicts. On the basis of charge sheet and materials available on record, cognizance for the offence has been taken under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The charge for the offence u/s 307/34 of the I.P.C. was framed against appellants the case was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal.

The defense of the appellants/convicts totally denied from the charge leveled against them and pleaded for their innocence.

The point to be considered in this appeal before this Court is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the charge leveled against the appellants by plausible evidence beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt or not.

In order to bring home the guilt to the accused, altogether six witnesses had been examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of which P.W.-1 Nagendra Narayan Lal and P.W.-2 Praveen Kumar Srivastava are formal witnesses. Rest witnesses are P.W.-3 Usha Singh, P.W.-4 Raj Ballav Singh (Informant), P.W.-5 Tej Narayan Singh and P.W.-6 Anil Kumar Bhatt (Doctor).

P.W.-3,  Usha  Singh  is  the  wife  of  the informant (PW-4) who deposed in her evidence that on the date of occurrence while she was going to attend nature’s call, accused Ramdhani Singh attacked on her head by lathi. On hearing her voice, the informant came to rescue but the accused Ramdhani Singh and Raj Govind Singh also assaulted him by lathi and accused Champa Devi assaulted by means of bhala. When uncle of the informant Tej Narayan Singh came to save them, the accused persons also assaulted him. After that, the informant started fleeing away but Ramdhani assaulted him by means of knife on the right side of the body. She further deposed in her cross-examination that the accused persons are brothers and a land dispute is existing between them.

P.W.-4 Raj Ballav Singh is the informant of the case who deposed in his examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, he was sitting at the upper floor of his house then his wife cried. He reached there and saw the accused persons assaulting her. When he tried to save her, accused Ramdhani Singh as well as Raj Ballav Singh having lathi in their hand and Champa Devi having bhala in her hand, started assaulting him due to which he fell down. In the meantime, accused Ramdhani Singh came with knife and assaulted over left side his neck. The accused also assaulted his uncle Tej Narayan Singh (PW-5) in the course of the incident. He further deposed that he fled away and closed the gate of his house from inside and locked himself in.

P.W.-5, Tej Narayan Singh, uncle of the informant deposed in his evidence that after hearing hulla, he came at the place of occurrence and saw the appellants/accused persons assaulting the informant and his wife. When he reached to save them, accused Ramdhani Singh assaulted on his left side of head and ear by means of lathi. He further deposed that accused Raj Govind and Champa Devi were lashed with lathi while Ramdhani was lashed with bhala.

P.W.-6, Anil Kumar Bhatt is doctor who examined the injured persons. He found one lacerated would and two bruises on the person of the injured Usha Devi (PW-3). Two lacerated wounds, two incised wounds and three abrasion were found on the person of injured Raj Ballav Singh (informant). All the injuries on Raj Ballav Singh were caused by hard and blunt objects, except three injuries which were caused by sharp edged weapon. On the same day, he also examined injured Tejnarayan Singh (PW-5) upon whom, he found one lacerated wound and an abrasion. He further deposed that all injury sustained by aforesaid three injured are simple in nature.

Mr. J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is bad in law. He further submitted that all the injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature therefore, conviction u/s 307 of the I.P.C. should not be awarded. The trial court failed to appreciate that there was no any independent witness, all the witnesses are highly interested witnesses which creates doubt about credibility of the prosecution evidence. It is also submitted that in this case, Investigation Officer was not examined and due to his non-examination, the defense caused prejudice. There is also contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses adduced in the trial, as P.W.-4 (informant) deposed that accused Ramdhani and Raj Govind assaulted with lathi, while Champa Devi assaulted with a bhala, but P.W.-5 stated that Ramdhani had a bhala and Champra Devi attacked with lathi.

In contra, learned APP appearing for the state has opposed and submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court is based on consistent and cogent evidence which are produced during the trial against the appellants and the same is fit and proper. It is well established that the appellant Ramdhani Singh inflicted knife injury over the right chest of the informant below the neck and all accused have also assaulted Usha Devi and Tej Narayan Singh by means of lathi. The doctor has found injuries over all injured persons and medical report corroborated the prosecution.

I have gone through the entire oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses which are available on on record, it is evident that informant’s wife Usha Singh and uncle Tej Narayan Singh were assaulted by the accused-appellants. Further, the accused persons have given three successive sharp cutting injuries along with other injuries on the body of the informant. All injured witnesses P.W.-3 Usha Singh, P.W.-4 Raj Vallab Singh (informant) and P.W.-5 Tej Narayan Singh specifically stated in respect of place, time and genesis of the occurrence. They have also deposed regarding injuries sustained on their persons. The doctor, P.W.-6 Anil Kumar who had examined the injured persons, corroborated the prosecution case and deposed that he found stab blow on chest and right arm and other injuries on the person of the informant. He also found injuries on persons of the rest injured.

In this case, the important question to be scrutinized from the evidence available on record produced by the prosecution is whether the prosecution has established the charge leveled against the accused-appellants under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or not. I perused the entire evidence in respect of the offence u/s 307 of the I.P.C. First of all, I would like to discuss the ingredients of 307 of Indian Penal Code which are required as evidence by the prosecution for conviction of the accused.

i) the nature of weapon.

ii) the place where injuries were inflicted.

ii) the nature of the injuries caused.

iv) the opportunity available which the accused gets.

To constitute an offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the intention or knowledge must be necessary to establish the murder. The intention is to be gathered from the nature of the weapons used and part of the body where the injuries are inflicted. In this case, P.W.-4 Raj Vallab Singh who is the informant, sustained two lacerated wounds, two incised wounds and three abrasion on his person. Doctor opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. Out of total injuries sustained by the informant, three injuries caused by sharp edged weapon and rest were caused by hard blunt object. In respect of injuries sustained by P.W.-5 Tej Narayan Singh, doctor found one lacerated wound and one abrasion which are simple in nature caused by hard and blunt object. P.W.-3 Usha Singh was also examined by doctor (PW-6) upon whom, one lacerated wound and two bruises were found which are simple in nature caused by hard blunt substance.

Considering the nature of above injuries, which sustained by injured persons are simple in nature. From perusal of the prosecution evidence deposed by injured persons, two injuries sustained by P.W.-4 Raj Vallab Singh which are opined by the doctor as incised wound which were inflicted by appellant-Ramdhani Singh and other injuries sustained by all injured persons are also inflicted by all accused persons/appellants, are lacerated and abrasion. It is also established that the Ramdhani Singh assaulted by means of knife to the informant and all injured persons sustained injuries, are assaulted by all appellants by means of lathi. I am of this view that all injuries sustained by the injured persons are simple in nature. On consideration of prosecution evidence, there is no intention to kill the injured by the accused-appellants. The prosecution has not able to prove the charge leveled against the appellants u/s 307/34 of the Indian penal Code.

Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence as discussed above, I hold the appellant, namely, Ramdhani Singh is found guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and further all three accused-appellants along with Ramdhani Singh are found guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and convict them thereunder. In this case, the appellants had faced ordeal of trial since beginning of the case i.e. from the year of 1991. This appeal relates to year 2006. In this case appellants Raj Govind Singh and Champa Devi are remained in jail for more than one month and appellant Ramdhani Singh is remained in jail for about three months.

Considering the period of custody as well as ordeal of trial, the appellants are sentenced to period already undergone by them. The appeal stands dismissed with aforesaid modification of judgment of conviction and order of sentence.