Back
2007 Supreme(Pat) 643
PATNA HIGH COURT
I.P.Singh, J.
Ram Bilash Yadav
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 1992 ;
Decided On : MARCH 29, 2007
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts, the establishment of the right of private defense by the accused, and the significance of unexplained injuries on the accused persons.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Assault and Rioting - Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324 - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of assault and rioting by the accused persons against the informant and his family over a disputed land. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants were acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the accused persons allegedly assaulting the informant and his family over a disputed land. The prosecution claimed that the accused were trying to amalgamate the land in their favor, leading to a confrontation and assault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the appellants deserved the benefit of doubt. As a result, the conviction and sentence passed by the lower court were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged assault and rioting by the accused, the validity of the prosecution's evidence, and the establishment of the right of private defense by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the establishment of a case of private defense by the accused, and the presence of injuries on the accused persons that were not adequately explained by the prosecution.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
I.P.Singh, J.
1. Appellant no. 1 Ram Bilas Yadav has been convicted under Ss. 147 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for 6 months u/s. 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
2. Appellant no. 3 Sargun Yadav has been convicted under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo 6 months under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months u/s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and R.I. for one year u/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code respectively.
3. Appellant no. 4 Arjun Yadav was convicted u/s. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 months.
4. Appellant no. 5 Prabhash Yadav was convicted under Ss. 148 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months u/s. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and further R.I. for one year u/s. 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. However, all the sentenced were ordered to run concurrently.
6. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 26.6.1987 at 11 A.M. in village Balua-Satdhara Baihiyar, as alleged, the accused persons were dismantling the ridge of the field of Satto Devi which was cultivated by the informant on BHAULI and they were trying to amalgamate the said land in their land. It has been stated that the informant along with his sons and nephew went to the place of occurrence and protested against cutting the ridge, thereupon the appellant Rambilas ordered other accused persons to kill the prosecution party. Thereafter the accused Sargun Yadav gave farsa blow and accused Prabhash Yadav assaulted him on his head with GARASA. When the informant wanted to save himself warding of the blow he received injury on his hand. It has been alleged that accused Banarsi Yadav gave a lathi blow on his arm. After receiving farsa blow he became unconscious and fell down. When his brother and sons came there to save him they were also assaulted by the accused persons by means of farsa, garasa and lathi. Thereafter the informant was taken to hospital for his treatment. It has also been stated that the occurrence was seen by the witnesses Jagdish Yadav, Sital Yadav and Gujali Yadav. It has been stated that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at Amarpur block and on the basis of which a formal F.I.R. was registered. The Police started investigation and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted, and accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial.
7. The appellants pleaded not guilty and have stated that they have falsely been implicated in this case due to enmity.
8. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sital Yadav. He claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 2 is Dr. Kashinath Jha. He examined the injured.
P.W. 3 is Jagdish Yadav. P.W. 4 is Basudeo Yadav. P.W. 5 is Prakash Yadav. P.W. 6 is Japo Yadav. He claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence. P.W. 7 is Chhathu Yadav., P.W. 8 is Basant Yadav, the informant of this case, injured. P.W. 9 is Gujali Yadav. He also claims to be the eye witness of the occurrence and P.W. 10 is Ram Bihari Singh, the Investigating Officer of this case.
9. The defence has also examined three witnesses. D.W. 1 is Pravash Yadav. D.W. 2 is Pradeep Kumar Thakur. He is a formal witness and he has proved Exts. D. & G., sale deeds and D.W. 3 is Dashrath Chaudhary. He is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. D/1, Sale deed, Ext. E, rent receipt and Ext. F, Cancellation deed.
10. P.W. 1 Sital Yadav has fully supported the case of prosecution. He has stated that when he was ploughing his field he saw that the ridge of the land of Basant Yadav which he had taken from Sato Devi, was being damaged by the accused persons. According to him when Basant Yadav came and protested the accused Rambilas Yadav ordered to assault him thereupon the accused Sar
