Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Ved Narayan Singh @ Vedan Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 65 of 2001
Decided On : April 11, 2013
Conviction - Criminal Appeal - IPC Sections 324/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act - [IPC Sections 324/34, Section 27 of the Arms Act] - The court discussed the evidence and contradictions in the prosecution's case, highlighting the lack of proof for the nature of injuries and the weapons used. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer was deemed fatal to the prosecution's case, leading to the benefit of doubt being given to the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under IPC Sections 324/34 and Section 27 of the Arms Act based on the prosecution's case of assault and firing. The appellants denied the prosecution story, and the trial court convicted them based on the available materials.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the nature of injuries and the weapons used, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer caused serious prejudice to the appellants. As a result, the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the lack of proof for the nature of injuries and the weapons used, contradictions in witness statements, and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of conclusive evidence for the prosecution's case, the contradictions in witness statements, and the fatal impact of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was set aside. All the appellants were discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.
Hemant Kumar Srivastava. J.
This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.2.2001 and 7.2.2001 respectively, passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 1992 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 324/34 of the IPC and sentenced them, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the above-said offence and furthermore, appellants No. 1 and 2 were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, however, the sentences of the appellants No. 1 and 2, were ordered to run concurrently; and sentences of the appellants were ordered to be set off, with the period which has undergone by them, in course of trial.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that PW 8. namely, Saira Bano along with her son namely, Shahid Ali (PW 6) on 29.11.90 in injured condition went to Agion Police Station and gave her statement before the officer-In-charge of Agion police station, to this effect that on the same day at about 8:00 a.m. her neighbour namely. Malik Shah (appellant No. 3) was digging drainage on the road whereupon, her son namely. Shahid Ali (PW 6) forbade him to do so and requested that after arrival of his father he may construct the aforesaid drainage and after that a hot exchange of words ensued between them and thereafter Malik Shah started assaulting her son Shahid Ali. In the meantime appellant No. 1, appellant No. 3 and appellant No. 4 also came there and at that time, the appellant No. 1 and appellant No; 2 were carrying guns in their hands. She further stated that after arrival of the above-said appellants, she took her son to her house and came on rooftop of her house. The aforesaid four appellants also came at the rooftop of MOSALLI MIA through the roof of their house and from there appellant number 2. Satyendra Singh opened fire aiming her son, as a result of which her son sustained fire-arm injury on the right side of his neck and fell down there. In the meantime, appellant No. 1 came at rooftop of her house and he too fired on her, as a result of which, she sustained fire-arm injury on her left hand and she also fell down there. The appellants No. 3 and 4 also came on her rooftop and started assaulting her as well as her son with fist and legs. In the meantime co-villagers, Bijli Thakur, Chandrma Singh and others, came there and after that, the appellants fled away from there.
3. On the basis of aforesaid statement of PW 8. Agion (Garhani) PS case No. 47 of 90 for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 447/34 of the IPC and 27 of the Arms Act, was registered.
4. The formal FIR was drawn up against the appellants for the above-said sections and later on, Section 295 (A) of the IPC was also added. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. The learned CJM took the cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions in usual way.
5. The appellants were put on trial and on 12.10.93 all the four appellants were jointly charged for the offences punishable under Sections 307/34 and 448 of the IPC whereas; appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
6. In course of trial prosecution examined altogether, 12 witnesses and also got exhibited injury report of PW 6 and PW 8 as Ext. 1 series. FIR as Ext. 2 and fardbeyan as Ext. 3.
7. The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they denied the entire prosecution story. No evidence was adduced by the appellants in support of their defence but it appears from perusal of statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC as well as trends of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses that the defence of
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
