Back
1993 Supreme(Pat) 201
PATNA HIGH COURT
Narinder Singh Rao, J.
Mala Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Appeal No. 87 of 1993 ;
Decided On : APRIL 30, 1993
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused committed the offence charged. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt if the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - ATTEMPT TO MURDER - SECTION 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION SET ASIDE - ASSAULT - SECTION 323 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to murder the informant, Sakhi Yadav. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had waylaid and injured Sakhi Yadav with lathis near his fields. The appellants denied the allegations and claimed false implication due to previous enmity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offence of attempt to murder. The court noted that the medical evidence was not produced at trial, and the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Sakhi Yadav could not be ascertained. The court also found that the testimony of the independent witness, PW 3, did not corroborate the prosecution's case against the appellants Somara Yadav and Rajiram Yadav.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offence of attempt to murder. 2. Whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants had committed the offence of attempt to murder. The court noted that the medical evidence was not produced at trial, and the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by Sakhi Yadav could not be ascertained. The court also found that the testimony of the independent witness, PW 3, did not corroborate the prosecution's case against the appellants Somara Yadav and Rajiram Yadav. The court further held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted Somara Yadav and Rajiram Yadav of all charges. The court convicted Mala Yadav and Inderdeo Yadav under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for causing simple hurt to Sakhi Yadav. The court sentenced Mala Yadav and Inderdeo Yadav to the period already undergone by them, but fined them Rs. 500 each. In default of payment of fine, they were to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months each.
Narinder Singh Rao, J.
1. Mala Yadav, Somara Yadav, Inderdeo Yadav and Rajiram Yadav, the appellants, stand convicted under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each, Feeling arrived, they have preferred this appeal.
2. Mala Yadav and Somara Yadav appellants are brothers inter se. Inderdeo Yadav appellant is the son of Mala Yadav appellant, and Rajiram Yadav appellant that of Somara Yadav appellant. They are residents of Reria, district Rohtas, to which village informant Sakhi Yadav (PW 5) as also Ram Briksha Yadav (PW 1), Ramesh Sing (PW 2), Jhari Yadav. (PW 3) and Mukhdeo Yadav (PW 4) also belong, PW 1 is the son of the informant. The parties are having their adjoining fields at some distance from the abadi of the village. Near those fields is situate that plot, over which a dispute was pending between the parties in August, 1985, and even prior thereto.
3. The prosecution version, in brief is that on 10-8-1985 at about 2 p.m., when PW 5, while working in his field happened to pass by the side of the tubewell of the appellants, they had waylaid him, They had caused injuries to PW 5 with their lathis. The occurrence was witnessed by by PWs 1 to 4. After committing the crime, the appellants had disappeared with their weapons. Subsequently PW 5 was removed to State Dispensary, Tilautha, where he was admitted as an indoor patient. The police had arrived in that Dispensary the same day at 5 p.m., and recorded fardbeyan of PW 5. On its basis, the case was registered. After completion of the investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted.
4. All together five witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and they all one alleged eye-witnesses of the occurrence. The appellants, in their examinations, had denied the prosecution allegations, and stated that they were innocent. They had maintained their false implications due to previous enmity. They had not examined any witness in their defence.
5. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard, and records carefully gone through.
6. It has remained undisputed that PW 5 had voluntarily caused some blunt weapon injuries in the afternoon of 10-8-1985 near his fields. Now according to prosecution, the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, had opened a murderous assault on him. From their side, a case of denial simpliciter was put forward. The material question for determination is to see as to if satisfactory evidence is available on record for connecting the appellants with the offence charged.
7. True that PWs 2 and 4 had not supported the prosecution case, and name of PW1 as an eye-witness, was not mentioned in the F. I. R. still the prosecution case stands fully established on the basis of reliable evidence rendered by PWs 3 and 5. Out of them, PW 5 is a stamped witness-he having received the injuries. PWs 3 is an independent witness. He was duly named in the F. I. R. as an eye-witness. Therefore, from reliable testimony of PWs 3 and 5, it stands fully established that the latter was voluntarily caused lathi blows.
8. The main point for determination is to see as to who were the assailants of PW 5, and what offence they had committed. On these points, PW 3 had corroborated PW 5 only with respect to committing the crime by Mala Yadav and Inderdeo Yadav appellants. PW 3 had not said a word about the presence of Somara Yadav and Rajiram Yadav appellants near PW 5 at the time of the occurrence. The given circumstances of the case, especially inimical relations of the parties, to require the scrutiny of the material brought with all possible care and caution. Viewed the case in that backdrop, benefit of doubt is required to be given to Somara Yadav and Rajiram Yadav appellants as their participation in the occurrence had not been owned by the only independent witness (PW 3). However from his evidence and that of PW 5, it is satisfactorily proved that
