Ram Govind Yadav and Others vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J.—The appellants suffered conviction u/s 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, (IRC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years. Before hearing of the appeal commenced, it was brought to the notice of the Court that Appellant No. 1, namely, Ram Govind Yadav and Appellant. No. 4 Vakil Yadav, were dead and on these submissions, an inquiry report was sought from the Superintendent of Police, Buxar, and oh receipt of the report about the death of Appellant Nos. 1 and 4, the appeal abated as against them.

The factual matrix. It is alleged that while Jagdish Singh (PW 4) was going to make some purchases in Dumraon market on occasion of celebration of marriage of his grand daughter, he was intercepted by the appellants, pursuant to which, on exhortation made by Ram Govind Yadav, (now dead), Bharat Yadav alias Tengari, dealt blows with farsa on his head which was followed by assault by Appellant Nos. 2 and 4 Appellant Ram Govind Yadav was also saddled with the allegation of removing Rs. 1000/- from the pocket of Jagdish Singh. After the prosecution was launched on behest of Jagidsh Singh, investigation commenced, in course of which the Police recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, secured injury report of Jagdish Singh and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court, in the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether eight witnesses including injured, the doctor, who clinically examined him, some formal witnesses and also these who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the occurrence. The defence of the appellants before the trial Court and also this Court was denial of entire allegations. They ascribed their false implication due to persisting dispute between the parties. However, trial Court consideration of the evidences placed on the record, both oral and documentary-in nature, while rejecting contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellations about their innocence, verdict of guilt u/s 307/34, IPC and sentenced them in the manner stated above.

Contentions raised at Bar on behalf of Appellant Nos. 2 and 3, whose case survives for consideration, was that though volume of documents were placed on the record on behalf of the appellants, which would unmistakably suggest persisting enmity between the parties making a ground for their false implication, the Court below did not take into consideration those documents and rushed to an erroneous conclusion about enmity of the appellants. Yet, it is urged that the prosecution had examined only those who were interested in the affairs of the victim, entirely to the exclusion of the independent witnesses. Other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellants was that taking the prosecution version to be true on the face value about the Appellant No. 3 dealing blows with farsa on scalp of Jagdish Singh, the narration was that solitary blow was inflicted on him and there being on accusation about repetition of blow or there being no intervening circumstances which could desist the assailant from repeating further below, the case of the appellants would squarely fall within the mischief of Section 324, IPC and the last argument cvanvassed on behalf of the appellants was that since the prosecution was launched against the appellants in the year 1984, and since then about two decades have elapsed and the appellants have suffered the ordeal of protracted prosecution for about 18 years, ends of justice would be met, in case finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court is endorsed by this Court, if the appellants, instead of senitecing them to a substantive imprisonment, are sentenced to fine. Earned Counsel for the State would resist the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants and it is urged that State has led good and positive evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution case.

Now adverting to the evidence that has been placed on the record, one would find Jagdish Singh reiterating his early version which heTendered before the Police about Bharat Yadav alias Tengari Yadav dealing blows on his scalp with lethal weapon, pursuant to which assault by Garjan Yadav and Vakil Yadav with hard and blunt substance, followed. The allegations attributed to Ram Govind Yadav about exhorting the associates and committing theft of Rs. 1000/-from the person of Jagdish Singh was also reiterated in his evidence. The witnesses have lent assurance to the prosecution allegation on all these material particulars. Ram Yogi Yadav (PW 1), Gajendra Singh (PW 2), and Saligram Singh (PW 3) would make similar narrations about Appellant No. 3 dealing blows with sharp edged weapon on the scalp of Jagdish Singh which was followed by assault with hard and blunt substance by Appellant Nos. 2 and 4.

The doctor, who examined the injured, has noticed corresponding injuries on his person, as apart from incised wound which was of dimension of 3-1/2" � 1/2" � 1/ 2" on the middle vertex, there were also bruises on the person of the injured. In the estimation of the doctor, while Injury No. I was caused by sharp cutting weapon, Others were result of assault by hard and blunt substance, though all the injuries were simple in nature.

Though some documents were placed on the record on behalf of the appellants ostensibly to suggest enmity between the parties, even taking them to be true, the old maxim that it operates in both ways cannot be lost sight of, as while there may be chance of false implication, this possibility cannot be ruled out that on being mobilised by old enmity.

In view of clinching evidence of four witnesses including that of the injured who hail from the same village, their presence at the place of occurrence cannot possibly be questioned in view of State having laid good and positive evidence to lend assurance to the prosecution allegations, that were attributed to the appellants. Now, coming to the defence raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants, I find that there has been accusation about dealing solitary blow on the scapula of the victim by Bharat Yadav alias Tengari Yadav and the injury too was found to be simple in nature by the doctor who clinically examined the injured. Even other injuries which were attributed to Garjan Yadav were considered to be simple in nature. Considering these circumstances, Appellant No. 3 cannot be credited to have dealt blow with an intention of causing death of the injured and that apart, as has been urged at Bar, there was no intervening circumstance to desist the appellants from translating their design into action and in my considered opinion, the case of the appellants squarely fall within the mischief of Section 324/34, IPC and finding of the Court below on that score is accordingly set aside, finding Appellant No. 3 Bharat Yadav alias Tengari Yadav guilty u/s 324, IPC and likewise, Appellant No. 2 Garjan Yadav held guilty u/s 324/34, IPC. Prosecution was launched in the year 1984 and since then about two decades have elapsed and during the said period, the appellants had suffered trauma of protracted prosecution for about 3 years. About Appellant No. 2, it is stated, that in the year 1991, when he was examined by the trial Court, he was about 60 years of age and by now he must be 71 years old. About Appellant No. 3, it is state that he was about 50 years when examined by the trial Court in the year 1991, and he by this time must not be less than 60 years old. Appellant No. 3 remained in custody for about 2-1/2 years during the period of trial and both the appellants remained in custody during post conviction period for a week. In these circumstances, both the appellants are sentenced to the period already undergone by them and in addition, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) each, and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for eight months. The fine must be deposited with the Court below within two months of the receipt/production of a copy of the order and half of the fine so realised, shall be payable to the injured or his successor, in case the former is not alive.

With the modification in the order of conviction and sentence to the extent indicated above, this appeal is dismissed.