Back
1979 Supreme(Pat) 255
PATNA HIGH COURT
Birendra Prasad Sinha and S.Shamsul Hasan JJ.
Awadhesh Rai
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 368 of 1975 ;
Decided On : NOVEMBER 19, 1979
In cases involving clashes between two parties, the police should arraign all persons involved in one case, charging each person for any specific act they may have committed, separately as well as cumulatively, to avoid the concealment of injuries and ensure that all parties face the consequences of their actions.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302, 302 READ WITH 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - DYING DECLARATION - INJURIES ON ACCUSED PERSONS - ACQUITTAL OF CO-ACCUSED - BENEFIT OF DOUBT:
Fact of the Case:
Appellants Awadhesh Rai and Jai Kishun Rai were convicted for the murder of Ramji Rai and causing injuries to Parma Rai and Satyanarain Rai. The prosecution alleged that the appellants and other accused persons assaulted Ramji Rai with bhala and pharsa, leading to his death. The defense claimed that the prosecution's version was false and that the prosecution party had assaulted the accused persons.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the dying declaration of Ramji Rai was not reliable due to doubts about his physical fitness and the circumstances surrounding its recording. The court also noted that the prosecution witnesses had concealed injuries on two of the accused persons and that four other accused persons had been acquitted. The court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: 1. Whether the dying declaration of Ramji Rai was admissible and reliable. 2. Whether the prosecution witnesses had concealed injuries on the accused persons. 3. Whether the acquittal of the four co-accused affected the credibility of the prosecution's case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the dying declaration was not reliable due to doubts about Ramji Rai's physical condition, the lack of evidence that the contents were read over to him, and the delay in sending the declaration to the authorities. 2. The court found that the prosecution witnesses had deliberately concealed the injuries on the accused persons, which raised doubts about the true manner of occurrence. 3. The court held that the acquittal of the four co-accused created doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's evidence and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants, and acquitted and discharged them from their bail bonds.
S. Shamsul Hasan, J.
1. Appellant Awadhesh Rai has been convicted under Sec.302 of the Penal Code and appellant Jai Kishun Rai has been convicted under Sec.302 read with Sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them has been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
2. The deceased in this case is one Ramji Rai and two other persons, namely, Parma Rai and Satyanarain Rai had received injuries. The appellants have been found guilty of assaulting Ramji Rai only by bhala and pharsa. It is said that Awadhesh Rai struck Ramji with Bhala on his right panjra and Jaikishun Rai gave a Pharsa blow on his head. Originally there were six accused persons, four of whom have been acquitted, because tht assault by other accused persons, as alleged by the prosecution, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
3. It may be stated here that the prosecution party and the accused persons belong to the same village Tarwan P. S. Mirganj, district Gopalganj. Accused Narsingh Rai and deceased Ramji Rai had their Baithaka in front of each other. Rajendra Rai P. W.1 and appellant Awadhesh Rai both were students of Gopeshwar College, Hathwa. On 21-8-72, at about 1 p. m. Rajendra Rai had gone to Gopalganj to attend his class. While he was sitting near the college all alone appellant Awadhesh and his associate Uma Shanker went to the Mandir and in the way appellant Awadhesh Rai accused Rajendra rai P. W.1 and told him that he had learnt that P. W.1 had arranged a man for Rs.50/- for killing him. Both appellant Awadhesh and his associate Uma shankar tried to assault Rajendra. On this Rajendra fled away on his cycle towards his house and related the occurrence to accused Narsing Rai. At about 5 p. m deceased Ramji questioned accused Narsingh Rai as to why such an occurrence was happening and also as to why his son tried to assault his son (Rajendra Rai ). This led to exchange of hot words. At that moment P. Ws.1, 4 and 6 reached the spot. Appellants Awadhesh and jai Kishun and other accused persons were sitting in the Baithka of Narsingh rai from before. Appellant Awadhesh Rai and accused Chandrama Rai had Bhala while Jaikishun Rai had Pharsa and others had Lathi. Awadhesh, it is said, came forward in the Sahan and inflicted Bhala blow on this right panjra of Ramji Rai on which he fell down. Thereafter appellant Jaikishun raj gave a Phalsa blow on the head of Ramji Rai causing considerabk bleeding. Then other accused persons assaulted Satyanarain Rai and Parma rai were then taken to Hathwa Hospital and the accused persons fled away.
4. At 8 p. m. an information was received by the Officer-in-Charge mirganj P. S. from the hospital. After making S. D. entry No.329 dated 21-8-72, he left for the hospital reaching there at 8.30 p. m. There he found Ramji Rai in a very precarious condition. Dr. (Smt.) Rajeshwari narain had sent an information to the Block Development Officer and to the circle Inspector for recording the dying declaration of Ramji Rai. When they were not available the Officer-in-Charge of Hatwa P. S. requested dr. Narain to record the dying declaration, which was duly done and it is ext.5 in this C3se. The Officer-in-Charge recorded the Fardbeyan Ext.6 on the statement of Satyanarain Rai P. W.6. Ramji Rai died at 2 p. m. in the hospital. Dr. (Smt.) Rajeshwari Narain could not be examined because, it is said, she died in the meantime and the dying-declaration has been proved by the compounder.
5. The defence of the appellants is that the prosecution has not come out with true version of the occurrence. Several persons had been injured on the side of the accused persons. According to the defence, it was the prosecution party, which had surrounded the accused persons over the Rasta due to previous enmity and as a matter of fact the prosecution party had assaulted two of the accused persons Chandrma Rai and Ramkishum Rai. In this way it was sought to show that the prosecution case is not worthy of acceptance.
6. In order to test the acceptability o
