Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Choudhary, J.
Awadh Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Decided On : NOVEMBER 09, 1953
Criminal Appeal - Assault - Identification of Accused - Non-Holding of Test Identification Parade - Credibility of Witnesses - Constructive Liability - Evidence of Injured Witnesses - Disbelief of Prosecution Story - Reliance on Part of Prosecution Story - Rule of Prudence.
Fact of the Case:
A mob of 50-60 people armed with weapons attacked a group of villagers who were desilting a pyne (water channel). One person died and several others were injured. The appellants were convicted of rioting and causing grievous hurt. They appealed, arguing that the prosecution had failed to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had not established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It held that the evidence of the injured witnesses was not credible, and that the non-holding of a test identification parade had prejudiced the appellants. The court also found that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellants were members of the mob that had attacked the villagers.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt. 2. Whether the evidence of the injured witnesses was credible. 3. Whether the non-holding of a test identification parade had prejudiced the appellants. 4. Whether the prosecution had proved that the appellants were members of the mob that had attacked the villagers.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt because the evidence of the injured witnesses was not credible and the non-holding of a test identification parade had prejudiced the appellants. 2. The court held that the evidence of the injured witnesses was not credible because they had attempted to attribute the particular act of assaults to the different appellants without any reason. 3. The court held that the non-holding of a test identification parade had prejudiced the appellants because it had deprived them of the opportunity to challenge the identification evidence of the prosecution witnesses. 4. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the appellants were members of the mob that had attacked the villagers because there was no reliable evidence to support this claim.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed on the appellants.
Choudhary, J.
1. The appellants Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 326/149, Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under the former section and for seven years each under the other sections. The appellants Nos, 1 to 3 have also been convicted under Sec.324, Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years each under that section. The sentences are to run concurrently. The appellants Nos. 6 and 7 have been convicted under Sections 148 and 326/149, Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years each under Sections 326/149, Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed under Sec.148, Penal Code, The appellant No. 9 has been convicted under Sections 147 and 326/149, Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 326/149, Penal Code, but no separate sentence has been passed under Sec.147, Penal Code,
2. The prosecution case is as follows. Dhangawan pyne alias Darbasaln pyne starts about 8 or 9 chains south of the trijunction of three villages, namely, Marsua, Morasa and Asiawan, and after passing through several villages towards the north terminates in village Dhargawan. The surplus water of adjacent fields known as Nigar is discharged into the mouth of this pyne. The residents of Dhangawan and neighbouring villages are alone entitled to the water discharged in this pyne, and admittedly the residents of Asiawan. Morasa and Marsua have no right to irrigate their fields from it. On 23-9-1951, at 8 a.m. about 50 persons, residents of village Dhangawan and the neighbouring villages started desilting the pyne just from the northern side of the road-pyne. After they had desilted at places where it was found necessary to desilt and had proceeded about 175 places north of the crossing they heard people shouting towards the south and they saw a mob numbering 50 or 60 armed with various weapons approaching towards them.
At this Jamuna Singh (P. W. 1) who was supervising the work told his men to leave digging, whereupon they left the work and shifted to an adjacent marua field towards the east of the pyne. The armed mob reached near the place where these persons were and the appellant Awadh Singh asked Jamuna Singh to stop digging. The latter asserted his right, and thereupon the appellant ordered assault. The mob thereafter began to assault. The appellants Awadh Singh, Rajdeo Singh and Keshwar Mahton struck Kamjit with garassas and the appellants Awadh Singh, Rajdeo Singh and Deonandan Mahton struck Jamuna Singh (P. W. 1) with garassas. The appellants Sheoratan Singh also gave a garassa blow to Baldeo Singh (P. W. 6). Keshwar Mahton (P. W. 4), Ramkishun (P, W. 10). Chandraman (P. W. 11) and Karu Singh (P. W. 15) also received injuries in the scuffle. Several other persons who, being frightened, took to their heels, were also chased and assaulted by the members of the mob.
After the mob left the place, the prosecution party arranged for cots and bearers and took the injured persons to the nearest police station at Jehanabad which is at a distance of six miles from the place of occurrence and first information was lodged by Bhagwat Singh (P. W. 24) at 2 P. M. on the same day. After recording the first information and preparing the injury reports, the investigating officer sent the injured persons to the hospital where Ramjit died. On receipt of this information the investigating officer reached the hospital at about 3 P. M. and having prepared an inquest report forwarded the dead body of Ramjit for post mortem examination. After investigation the police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants along with three other persons, namely. Ruplal alias Saroop, Bhausagar and Mahabir. On preliminary enquiry having been held they were committed to the Court of session for trial.
3. The defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and that they had not gone to the place of occur
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
