Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 989
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Anirudh Ram S/o - Asharfi Ram - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.640, 652, 644 of 2015
Decided On : 13-07-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Prakash Chandra Jha, Advocate
For the Informants :Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Mr. Dhananjay Kr Gupta, Mr. Deepak Kumar, Advocate, Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, the need to consider discrepancies and delay in filing cases, and the requirement for a common object for an unlawful assembly.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 148, 326, 307, 147, 323, 149 IPC - The court found Anirudh Ram guilty under Sections 148, 326, 307 IPC and sentenced him to undergo RI for 2 years, 7 years, and 7 years respectively. The remaining appellants were found guilty under Sections 147, 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year and 6 months. The case involved an incident where the appellants assaulted the prosecution party over a land dispute. The court analyzed the evidence and found discrepancies in the prosecution's version, leading to the modification of the convictions and sentences.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an assault on the prosecution party over a land dispute. The defense denied the occurrence, claiming it was a false case to save the accused from a counter-case. The prosecution presented evidence of the assault and injuries sustained by the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the prosecution's version, including inconsistencies in the evidence and delay in filing the case. It noted the lack of conclusive evidence of injuries sustained by the accused and the absence of a common object for the unlawful assembly. The court set aside the convictions and sentences related to Section 307 IPC and modified the sentences for the remaining appellants.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the prosecution's version, the presence of discrepancies and delay in filing the case, and the absence of a common object for the unlawful assembly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found discrepancies and inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the prosecution's version. It also considered the absence of a common object for the unlawful assembly and the delay in filing the case. These factors influenced the court's decision to set aside certain convictions and modify the sentences for the remaining appellants.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals with modifications to the convictions and sentences. Anirudh Ram's sentence was reduced, and the remaining appellants were discharged from the liability of bail bonds.
1. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.640 of 2015 wherein Anirudh Ram is the sole appellant, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.652 of 2015 wherein Bhuar Ram @ Bhuaur Ram, Satish Ram, Baleshwar Ram, Mahanth Ram and Ashok Ram are the appellants, Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.644 of 2015 wherein, Suraj Prasad and Manjay Prasad are the appellants have been filed against a common judgment of conviction dated 06.10.2015 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-12th, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 670 of 2007 on that very pretext, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Appellant, Anirudh Ram has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- in default thereof, to undergo RI for 6 months, under Section 307 IPC to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default thereof, to undergo RI for six months additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently while remaining appellants, namely, Bhuar Ram @ Bhuaur Ram, Satish Ram, Baleshwar Ram, Mahanth Ram, Ashok Ram, Suraj Prasad and Manjay Prasad have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, under Section 323 IPC sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months, under Section 307/149 IPC, to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default thereof, to undergo RI for 6 months additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.
3. Lal Bahadur Ram (PW 6) gave his Fard-e-beyan on 05.01.2004 while he was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Motihari along with his injured mother, Shivkali Devi alleging, inter alia, that on 02.01.2004 at about 4:30 PM. while his mother was carrying she-goat, which, after covering some distance, had gone to the maize field of Bhuar Ram, on account thereof, Bhuar Ram who was present in the field, began to abuse her as well as also slapped her. Suraj Prasad, Manjay Prasad and Mahanth Ram were nearby irrigating their field rushed carrying Lathi. During midst thereof, Anirudh armed with Farsa, Ashok armed with Lathi, Baleshwar Ram armed with Garasa and Satish Ram who happens to be member of the same family arrived and then thereafter, began to abuse his mother. On hue and cry, he along with brother Subhash Ram arrived. Seeing them, Suraj Prasad provoked whereupon, Anirudh gave Farsa blow over his mother cutting forehead as well as eye (left eye). She became unconscious. As soon as he rushed to save his mother, Ashok Ram gave Lathi blow over his head. His brother Subhash was also chased. Manjay Prasad snatched away writ watch as well as cash appertaining to Rs. 400/-. His brother Subhash along with villagers came after departure of accused persons and took him along with his mother to local hospital wherefrom they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Motihari.
4. The aforesaid Fard-e-beyan was transmitted from Town PS Motihari to Kalyanpur PS for registration and investigation of the case as occurrence so alleged committed within the jurisdiction whereupon Kalyanpur PS Case No. 02/2004 was registered followed with investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet being magistrate triable facilitating the trial before the court of Magistrate and during course thereof, invoking procedure as laid down under Section 323 CrPC, the case was committed to the court of sessions which ultimately concluded recording finding adverse to the appellants, the subject matter of these appeals.
5. The defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that of complete denial of the case.
6. It has also been pleaded that no such kind of occurrence had ever taken place rather the prosecution party in the background of persisting land dispute, brutally assaulted the accused persons for w
