Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2012 Supreme(Pat) 1388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA AND AMARESH KUMAR LAL, JJ.
Jawahar Lal Singh Son of Late Basudeo Singh
Moti Lal Singh Son of Late Basudeo Singh - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar - Respondent
with
Ramchandra Singh Son of Late Bhrigunath Singh @ Bhrigu Singh - Appellants
Versus
State Of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.746, 751 of 2005
Decided on: 17-10-2012

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 746 of 2005)
For the Appellant/s :Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP
(In CR. APP (DB) No. 751 of 2005)
For the Appellant/s :Mr. S. N. Pd. Sinha, Sr. Advocate Mr.Krishan Nandan Kumar, Advocate Ms. Kumari Namita, Advocate
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP

The prosecution must prove its case beyond a shadow of all reasonable doubts, and doubts regarding the injuries and lawful possession of the accused can benefit the accused in a case.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under sections 302/34 - 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code - Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court: The court discussed the prosecution's failure to establish the place and manner of occurrence, doubts regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, and the lawful possession of the accused persons over the disputed land. The defense relied on various documentary evidence to support their claim, and the court considered the judgments in Subramani and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Dev Raj and Another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, and Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Versus State of Gujarat in reaching its decision.
Fact of the Case:

The appeals arose from a judgment of conviction and order of sentence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case involved a dispute over land, assault, and the death of the informant's father.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the place and manner of occurrence, and doubts were raised regarding the injuries sustained by the accused. It also considered the lawful possession of the accused persons over the disputed land.
Issues: The issues included the prosecution's failure to establish the place and manner of occurrence, doubts regarding the injuries sustained by the accused, and the lawful possession of the accused persons over the disputed land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the judgments in Subramani and Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Dev Raj and Another Versus State of Himachal Pradesh, and Idrish Bhai Daudbhai Versus State of Gujarat in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence were set aside. The accused/appellants were acquitted of the charges.

JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA)

1. Above noted both the appeals have arisen out of common judgment, so both have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. Appellants named above preferred the appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.11.2005 and 26.11.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1992 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. II, Buxar whereby the appellants were convicted under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. Regarding killing of Bansh Narain Singh the father of the informant (PW 7), fard-beyan of Brij Narain Singh was recorded on 21.7.1991 at 11.45 AM at State Dispensary, Rajpur by A.S.I. of Rajpur Police Station wherein he stated that at about preceding 8.30 AM his mother (PW 4) Thakuri Devi was at her house. At that very time Moti Singh, Basudev Singh and Jawahar Singh were supplying soil on the Sahan land situated in front of his house. They were forbidden by the informant’s mother Thakuri Devi against throwing soil which was retaliated. Moti Singh with lathi assaulted on her head and hand, as a result thereof she fell down. On cry, the informant and his father went over the land and found the mother unconscious lying on the earth with broken head. Moti Singh, Basudeo Singh, Ramchandra Singh and Jawahr Singh assaulted the informant and his father by lathi. The injury received by the informant’s father was dangerous. After the informant and his father fell down, then on hearing cry, Satyendra Singh (PW 2), Ram Sahanker Singh (PW 3), Rajendra Sharma and others arrived and saved the situation from further aggravating. Litigation over the land in question was the cause of occurrence. The occurrence led to injury of Hurhungi Singh (not examined). The fard-beyan led to registration of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 63 of 1991 dated 21.7.1991 under Sections 323, 341, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and PW 8 Baleshwar Sharma was made the Investigating officer. The informant’s father died, and so section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After submission of chargesheet cognizance under sections 307, 302/34, 323 and some other sections of the Indian Penal Code was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where on being explaining the charges, the accused persons pleaded innocence and trial proceeded.

4. According to the First Information Report, the accused were four persons and during trial one of them, namely, Basudeo Singh died, so remaining three persons namely, the appellants, faced the trial.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its charge, examined 10 persons as witness. They are: PW 1 Bijendra Sharma, PW 2 Satyendra Singh, PW 3 Rama Shanker Mishra, PW 4 Thakuri Devi, PW 5 Ram Dayal Dubey, PW 6 Dr. Ambika Prasad Mandal who has been examined as DW 1 also, PW 7 Brij Narain Singh the informant and son of the deceased, PW 8 Baleshwar Sharma the Investigating Officer, PW 9 Parikha Singh who has been declared hostile and PW 10 is Lagni Devi.

6. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 7 are the FIR named witnesses. According to the FIR, PWs 1, 2 and 3 have come on hulla. PWs 4 and 7 were the injured witnesses.

7. Inquest Report (Ext. 1), fard-beyan (Ext. 4), signature on fard-beyan (Ext. 3) and the post mortem report (Ext. 2) were the documents which have been adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

8. On behalf of the defence PW 6 has been examined as DW 1. Other defence witnesses are DW 2 Ram Narayan Singh, DE 3 Musafir Singh and DW 4 Ramvyas Singh. The defence has relied mostly upon the documentary evidence which were Ext. A- injury report of Basudeo Singh, Ext. B- FIR of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1991, Ext. C - fard-beyan of Rajpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 1991, Ext. D- order dated 16.11.1993 under section 107 of the Cr.P.C., Ext. E- order dated 25.7.1999 in Cr. Rev. No. 147 of 1993, Ext.F- order dated 7.1.1991 in case No. 10

Click Here to Read the rest of this document