Sawalia Singh and Others vs State of Bihar

B.N.P. Singh, J

Altogether 12 accused persons were prosecuted for various charges, but since Bhola Singh died, only 11 accused persons could be put on trial who suffered conviction on various counts on being tried by Sri Krishna Mohan Srivastava, 3rd Assistant Sessions Judge, Chapra, in ST. No. 92 of 1979. Those who suffered conviction u/s 307/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years, were Rudal Singh, Sawalia Singh, Ajay Singh, Kamla Singh, Vijay Singh, Ram Pukar Singh, Dharamjit Singh, Bharat Singh, Algoo Singh, Bageshwar Singh and Parmeshwar Singh. Bijay Kumar Singh suffered conviction also u/s 326 IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of three years. Those who suffered conviction u/s 148 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year each, were Rudal Singh, Sawalia Singh, Ajay Singh, Kamla Singh and Bijay Singh. Pukar Singh, Dharamjit Singh, Bharat Singh, Alago Singh, Bageshwar Singh and Parmeshwar Singh suffered conviction also u/s 147 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six months with direction that in case of these convicts, sentences shall run concurrently.

All these convicts preferred Cr. Appeal No. 98 of 1986. However, during pendency of the appeal, since convict Rudal Singh and Ram Pukar Singh died, appeal as against them abated. In case of rest nine Appellants, while upholding their conviction u/s 307/149 IPC, the appellate court reduced their sentence to a term of four years. In case of convict Bijay Kumar Singh, while upholding his conviction u/s 326 IPC. sentence was reduced to a term of two years and with these modifications in the sentence only, the appeal was dismissed.

Though there has been no explicit finding in the judgment of the appellate court about upholding the rest finding of the trial court, impliedly it seems that there was no interference for the rest findings. All these nine Appellants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court in this revision in which findings recorded both by the trial court and the appellate court have been assailed and various contentions have been raised at Bar to persuade the Court to disbelieve the genesis of incident alleged by the prosecution and also manner of occurrence. About place of occurrence, contentions are raised that the prosecution was guilty also for introducing distorted version of the witnesses, about place of occurrence, as while the place of occurrence reflected in the fardbeyan of Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8) was the paddy field, where harvesting of crops was being made by the Petitioners, other witnesses shifted the place of occurrence to that of bandh.

Submissions were made at Bar that the evidences of even injured witnesses bristles with major contradictions which did not inspire confidence in them, and that apart, while placing reliance on Exhibit A, it was urged that neither the trial court nor the appellate court had taken into consideration the fact that a complaint case with regard to said occurrence had been filed by Ajay Singh, one of the Petitioners, and in that backdrop, there was hardly good reasoning to uphold the allegations attributed to the Petitioners. In quick succession, it is urged that on the Petitioners'' side, two persons suffered injuries on their persons, which would be explicit from the positive finding recorded by D.W. 2 who happens to be a doctor who clinically examined them, and since the prosecution has failed to explain the injury on the person of the accused persons, prosecution case had to be disbelieved in entirety and narrations made by the witnesses on this score had to be thrown over board. The Petitioners having suffered mental agony for more than 24 years for their protracted prosecution was also taken to be a ground in this revision.

Though broad features of the prosecution case have been well spelt out in the judgment of the trial court and also the appellate court, a brief narration of them can be recapitulated. It was alleged that at about 5.30 a.m. on 8.11.1978 while Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8), went to respond to nature''s call towards north of his house, he saw some persons in the paddy field and shortly after he visited the paddy field, he saw the Petitioners and others holding arms and hard blunt object and removing paddy crops. When he allegedly registered protest, on exhortation made by Ram Pukar Singh, Dharamjit Singh assaulted him with lathi causing injuries in the finger, pursuant to which all rushed towards him for assault. It was alleged that Rudal Singh and Sawalia Singh dealt blows with bhala on him for which he suffered injuries on his back and when Ramadhar Singh (P.W. 2) and Manager Singh (P.W. 7) came for rescue on alarm raised by him, Kamla Singh and Ajay Singh assaulted him with farsa and bhala respectively. Ramayan Singh (P.W. 3), Ram Bahadur Singh (P.W. 5) and Ram Bilas Singh (P.W. 6) too were assaulted with hard blunt objects when they came there. The injured were examined in Ekma hospital and due to their resistence bid to commit theft of paddy crop was foiled, and with these accusations, fardbeyan of Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8) was recorded by the Police at 10.55 hours on 8.11.1978. As usual, investigation followed and the Police on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses including the doctor and the injured, and the trial court, on appreciation of evidences placed on the record, recorded finding of guilt and sentenced the accused persons in the manner stated above. As has been noticed, the appeal preferred by the convicts was dismissed with modification in sentence.

Since the evidence of the witnesses including that of the doctor has been critically analysed both by the trial court and the court of appeal, I do not want to delve upon them in details. However, certain facts, which have been highlighted at Bar deserve to be noticed. Though the doctor (D.W.2) has noticed injuries on two persons on Petitioners'' side and also that the Petitioners had placed on the record Exhibit A, the copy of petition of complaint, instituted by Ajay Kumar, one of the Petitioners, the appellate court has rightly discarded the defence version on this score, as apart from the fact that the injuries on these two persons were simple and superficial in nature which were neither conspicuous nor likely to be taken notice of by the prosecution witnesses, there has been no good evidence that they suffered injuries in the same transaction, and that apart, it is no longer res Integra, crystallised in catena of decisions of the Courts, that the prosecution was not obliged to explain injuries on the person of the accused persons. In case evidences of the prosecution witnesses were clinching, cogent and straight, failure of the prosecution witnesses to explain the injuries would not outweigh good and clinching evidence laid at trial on behalf of the State. So far as the place of occurrence was concerned, there has been no distorted version of the prosecution witnesses as they were stating that while the occurrence initially took place in the paddy field, eventually assault on some persons took place also on the bandh.

Cases of the assailants with explicit accusations attributed to them by witnesses may be first taken up. Dharamjit Singh was the assailant of Raj Bahadur Singh with hard and blunt object and said Raj Bahadur Singh suffered injuries in the finger in his bid to resist blow, for which there is solitary evidence of the injured. But there has been corroboration of his evidence from the positive finding recorded by the doctor who noticed fracture of finger by the injury which was grievous. Though the doctor who clinically examined Raj Bahadur Singh noticed sharp cutting injury on the head, and also swellings, there has been no explicit accusation attributed to any of the Petitioners about he being the author of those injuries.

While switching over to the case of other assailants, Sawalia Singh, the accusation against htm was about assaulting Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8) with lethal weapon on his back for which there has been evidence of injured Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W.8) and Ram Bilas Singh (P.W. 6) who have lent assurance and corroboration to the accusations attributed to Raj Bahadur Singh, the injured, and that apart, there has been even positive finding recorded by the doctor about there being sharp cutting injury on the back of the injured.

Now case of Kamla Singh, other assailant may be considered and accusation against him was about assaulting Manager Singh with lethal weapon on the scalp for which there has been evidence of R Ws. 6, 7 and 8, and that apart, the doctor too had noticed corresponding sharp cutting injuries on head of Manager Singh, the injured. The other assailant against whom too accusations were attributed to about assaulting Manager Singh with lethal weapon, was Ajay Singh for which there has been evidence of R Ws. 6, 7 and 8 about assaulting the injured with lethal weapon on his neck. But there has been no corroborative finding of the doctor about there being any incised wound caused by sharp cutting weapon on the neck of the injured, as the doctor has found lacerated wound near occipital frontal bone on the neck caused by hard blunt object. Since the doctor has not noticed corresponding injury on the person of Manager Singh for which accusations were attributed to Ajay Singh, there was no good reason to find him assailant of the injuries noticed on the occipital frontal bone of the injured. The doctor had also noticed sharp cutting injuries on the shoulder of Manager Singh and also lacerated wound on his right hand. But there has been no explicit accusation attributed to any of the Petitioners about he being author of these injuries, and considered in this backdrop, Ajay Singh simply remained a memner of the unlawful assembly holding lethal weapon with him. Now case of Bijay Singh, other assailant can be considered who was suggested to be assailant of Ramayan Singh (P.W. 3) with accusation that he dealt blows with farsa on the right ear of Ramayan Singh for which there has been evidence of R Ws. 3, 6 and 8, and that apart, the doctor too has recorded positive finding about there being sharp cutting injuries on the right external ear of the injured which was grievous. The doctor had noticed swelling on both hands of Ramayan Singh for which accusations have been attributed to Bageshwar Singh and Dharamjit Singh about assaulting Ramayan Singh with hard and blunt object, and these accusations receive corroboration, apart from the evidence of Ramayan Singh (P.W. 3), who is injured, also from the evidence of Raj Bahadur Singh (P.W. 8). Notice may be taken of this fact that in fardbeyan of Raj Bahadur Singh no accusations were explicitly attributed to either Vijay Singh, Bageshwar Singh or Dharamjit Singh to be assailants of Ramayan Singh but as has been noticed, apart from Raj Bahadur Singh, there has been evidence also of the injured (P.W. 3) about these three persons being assailants of the injuries caused on him, and to crown all, as has been noticed, there has been also positive finding recorded by the doctor on this score.

Those who suffered conviction u/s 148 IPC by the trial court and finding of the trial court has also been endorsed by the appellate court, were Sawalia Singh, Ajay Singh, Kamla Singh, Vijay Singh and Parmeshwar Singh. No accusations were attributed to rest Petitioners about they holding lethal weapon with them. No explicit accusations were attributed to them about they having committed any overt act. About those who suffered injuries with lethal weapons, discussion has been made earlier. Neither nature of injuries suffered by the victims nor the accusations attributed to them can lead to conclusion that the assailants and their associates had acted with sole object of killing victims, nor there was good evidence to suggest that the assailants could not translate their design into action due to there being any intervening circumstances, and considered in this backdrop,, I find that conviction of the Petitioners u/s 307/149 IPC is not sustainable, and hence their conviction and sentence are accordingly set aside. The assailants and also non-assailants can be held liable only for their individual acts, there being no common object in prosecution or which acts were committed by them. The prosecution was launched against the Petitioners in the year 1978 and since then much water has flown over river Ganges, and more than a decade has passed since then. The Petitioners have suffered mental agony of their protracted prosecution. The genesis of the incident was land dispute and rival parties were claiming possession over the disputed land. Considered in the background of these attending circumstances of the case and also evidences on the record, Dharmajit Singh is held guilty u/s 325 IPC for which he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand), in default of which, he would suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. Other assailants Sawalia Singh and Kamla Singh are held guilty u/s 324 IPC for which they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) and in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of eight months.

Now coming to the case of Vijaya Singh, while upholding his conviction u/s 326 IPC, he is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) in default of which he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of 1-1/2 years. There has been accusation against Sawalia Singh, Ajay Singh, Kamla Singh and Vijay Singh for holding lethal weapon for which they suffered conviction u/s 148 IPC and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year by the trial Court. Accordingly, while upholding conviction of these four persons u/s 148 I.PC, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 700/- (seven hundred) each, in default of which, they would suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of six moths. Likewise, conviction of Dharamjit Singh, Bharat Singh, Algu Singh, Bageshwari Singh and Parmeshwar Singh u/s 147 IPC is upheld, and while setting aside sentences awarded to them by the trial court, they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (five hundred) each, in default of which, they shall suffer simple imprisonment for term of four months, and with these modifications, this revision is dismissed. It is further directed that the amount of fine be paid by the Petitioners within two months of the receipt/production of the order in the Court below.