Sita Ram Paswan vs The State of Bihar

Honourable Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16th of March, 2000 and order of sentence dated 18th of March, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 136 of 1994/42 of 1995 by the court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, whereby the appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, has been found guilty under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years. The other accused, Rajmatiya Devi, the wife of the appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, who also faced trial alongwith the appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, has not been found guilty and she was acquitted of the said charge. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan (Ext.1) of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), recorded on 12.6.1992 at about 4.00 hours at Government Hospital, Madanpur, is that the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), had a Radio Repairing Shop at Shivganj and he used to reside at Shivganj by constructing a hut on the government land alongwith his family. In the night of 11/12.6.1992 after taking the meal he slept outside the hut. In the night he felt some pressure on his neck caused by a sharp cutting weapon then he woke up and tried to pull the Fasuli due to which he sustained cut injury in his right thumb. He saw that his villager, the accused-appellant Sita Ram Paswan, had made an attempt to kill him with Fasuli and his wife, Rajmatiya Devi, had caught hold of his legs. Two other persons were also standing near his legs to whom he could not identify as when he woke up they fled away. He entered in the house of Ramdeo Mistry (P.W.1) raising hullah to save his life and, thereafter, both the accused persons fled away. The occurrence is of about 2.00 A.M. in the night. The informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), further alleged that the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, is his cousin brother with whom the litigation of land is going on. Yesterday (11.6.1992), the date was fixed in the case and his mother had gone to Aurangabad to pursue the case where the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, had quarreled with her and had also gave threatening to kill her son.

On the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext.1) of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), Madanpur P.S. Case No. 76 of 1992 dated 12.6.1992 under Sections 341, 307 and 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code was instituted against the appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, and his wife, Rajmatiya Devi, and the case was handed over for investigation to the A.S.I., Girija Prasad Singh (P.W.7), who on completion of investigation of the case submitted the chargesheet against them under Sections 341, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code to face trial. After the cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions, where the charges were framed against the accused persons, who pleaded their innocence and, accordingly, the trial proceeded.

The defence of the appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, was of false implication on account of land dispute in respect of which the civil suit between the parties is pending. The further defence of the appellant is that the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), had illicit relation with the wife of Raja Tamoli and there is possibility that other might have assaulted the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3).

The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether seven witnesses, out of them Ramdeo Mistry (P.W.1) and Shyam Deo Ram (P.W.2) have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile. P.W.4, Shatrughan Paswan and P.W.5, Anarwa Devi, respectively are the brother and mother of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), and they have said nothing about the occurrence, as alleged in the F.I.R. P.W.3 is the informant, Bishwanath Paswan and P.W.6, Punia Devi, is the wife of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), whereas P.W.7, Girija Prasad Singh, A.S.I., is the Investigating Officer of the case.

The informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), has stated in his evidence that the occurrence is of about 2.00 A.M. of the night of 12.6.1992. At that time he had slept outside the hut at Shivganj. At that time he felt some pressure on the neck caused by a sharp cutting weapon then he woke up and caught hold of Fasuli, a sharp cutting weapon, by his right hand in course of which he sustained cut injury in his right thumb and saw the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, who had given Fasuli blow at him, and his wife had caught hold of his both legs. While two persons were also alongwith them but he could not identify them as they fled away when he woke up. He raised voice of thieves-thieves and to save his life entered the house of Ramdeo Mistry (P.W.1). Thereafter, several people gathered there and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Madanpur, where he was treated and police recorded his statement there. He has further stated that after gathering of the villagers, the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan and his wife fled away. The informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), has further stated that before one day of the alleged occurrence, the date was fixed in the land dispute case and her mother had gone to Aurangabad to pursue the case, where some unknown persons had given threatening to kill his son. In paragraph-3 of his cross examination this witness has stated that the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, is his cousin brother, who used to reside in one portion of his house situated in village-Anjan, which is about 3-4 miles away from the place of occurrence, Shivganj. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that he had slept outside the boundary and his wife was sleeping inside the boundary. After passing over two minutes and fleeing of the accused persons, the villagers alongwith Raja Paswan and Meharchand, who were also sleeping nearby him, and had woke up, and gathered and, thereafter, his wife had come there.

P.W.6, Punia Devi, who is the wife of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), has stated in her evidence that the occurrence is about 2 A.M. of the night of about six years before. At that time she was sleeping in the surrounded Varamdah of the house situated in Shivganj, whereas her husband was also sleeping inside her on a cot. On screaming of her husband she woke up and saw that the accused, Rajmatiya Devi, had caught hold of the legs of her husband and the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, the husband of the accused, Rajmatiya Devi, was cutting the neck of her husband with Fasuli. Her husband was raising protest by catching hold of the hand of the accused-appellant, Sita Ram Paswan. When she reached there both the accused fled away. On hulla raised by her some villagers gathered there and her husband was taken for treatment to the Madanpur Hospital through TATA-407. She has stated in paragraph-2 of her cross examination that the cause of occurrence is land dispute. This witness has further stated in paragraph-7 of her cross examination that she was sleeping about 10 cubits away inside the boundary and where her husband was sleeping none was there.

From the evidence of P.W.6, Punia Devi, the wife of the informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), it is clear that while this witness has claimed to be eye witness to the occurrence but in paragraph-7 of her cross examination she has stated that at the time of occurrence she was sleeping about 10 cubits away inside the boundary and at the time of occurrence where her husband was sleeping none was there. The informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), himself has stated in paragraph-7 of his cross examination that after the occurrence the villagers had come and after two minutes thereafter his wife had come at the place of occurrence. As such, P.W.6 cannot be said to be eye witness of the occurrence. The informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), who is said to be injured, claimed to identify both the accused persons, has stated in his examination in chief that after the occurrence when the villagers came both the accused persons fled away but none of the witnesses have supported this factum. Apart from that, in this case, the doctor, who treated the injured- informant, Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3), has not been examined. As such, the sole testimony of Bishwanath Paswan (P.W.3) cannot be relied upon to hold the appellants guilty.

In view of the aforesaid discussions made above, I am of the view that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and the appellant is entitled to get the benefit of doubt. In the result, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant are hereby set aside and the appeal is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. The appellant, Sita Ram Paswan, is on bail, so he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond.