Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Ram Rai, S/o Late Pardeep Rai – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.92 of 2015
Decided On : 08-01-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Krishna Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate, Mrs. Meena Singh, Advocate, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. Abha Singh, A.P.P.
For the Informant :Mr. Pranaya Shankar Sinha, Advocate
The evidence of an injured witness is accorded special status in law, and the testimony of such a witness is considered to be very reliable. The court also emphasized the need for convincing evidence to discredit an injured witness and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
Ram Rai - Offence under Section 307 of IPC - Section 27 of Arms Act - [IPC Section 307, Arms Act Section 27] - The court found the appellant guilty of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Additionally, he was sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo R.I. for three years. The incident involved a land dispute and the appellant was accused of shooting the victim. The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the appellant. The court also considered the motive for the occurrence and the absence of blood stains at the scene. The judgment of conviction and sentence was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ram Rai, was found guilty of an offence under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. He was also sentenced under Section 27 of the Arms Act to undergo R.I. for three years. The incident involved a land dispute, and the appellant was accused of shooting the victim, Kailash Rai, causing injury. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies and medical reports to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the evidence, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and concluded that the prosecution had successfully proven the guilt of the appellant. The court also considered the motive for the occurrence and the absence of blood stains at the scene. The judgment of conviction and sentence was upheld.
Issues: The key issues in the case included the identification of the assailant, the presence of a motive for the occurrence, and the absence of blood stains at the scene.
Ratio Decidendi: The court accorded great weight to the evidence of the injured victim, Kailash Rai, and found it to be reliable. The court also considered the motive for the occurrence and the absence of blood stains at the scene. The court emphasized the need for convincing evidence to discredit an injured witness and upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgment of conviction and sentence, finding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 307 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Appellant Ram Rai has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for a year, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for six months, additionally, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 20.01.2015 and order dated 21.01.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- 2nd, Benipur, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.79 of 2007.
2. Kailash Rai (PW-9) gave his fard-bayan on 31.10.2004 at about 1.15 a.m. at P.H.C., Kusheshwarsthan in presence of Om Prakash Rai, Awadhesh Rai and Chandeshwar Rai disclosing therein that in the preceding evening at about 7.30 p.m. while he was returning from toilet, he had seen 7-8 persons at the darwaza of Ram Rai, which lies South to his house. As soon as, he reached at his darwaza, all of a sudden, Ram Rai, Kuldeep Rai, Ram Sobhit Rai, Sanjay Rai cordoned him and then, Ram Rai took out country-made pistol and shot him causing injury over his stomach. He, even after sustaining injury, rushed towards his darwaza. Till then, so many villagers assembled hearing the sound of firing, whereupon the accused persons fled away. Motive for the occurrence has been shown as land dispute. It has also been disclosed that he has arrived yesterday and a Panchayati has been convened on that very score.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fard-bayan, Kusheshwarsthan P. S. Case No.134 of 2004 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet facilitating the trial, which ultimately concluded in a manner, the subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case, as is evident from mode of cross examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete denial of the occurrence. Furthermore, deceased might have sustained injuries in different manner at different place, but due to prevailing animosity; he has been implicated in this false and concocted case.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 11 PWs, those are PW-1 Chandrashekhar Rai, PW-2 Awadhesh Rai, PW-3 Anita Devi, PW-4 Rajendra Rai, PW-5 Ram Sewak Rai, PW-6 Om Prakash Rai, PW-7 Shiv Shankar Rai, PW-8 Saraswati Devi, PW-9 Kailash Rai, informant of the case, PW- 10 Dr. Umakant Prasad and PW-11, Mithilesh Kumar Jha, I.O. of the case. Side by side, had also exhibited the documents viz. Exhibit -1 series, signature of informant as well as witnesses over the fardbayan, Exhibit-2, injury report, Exhibit-3, fard-bayan, Exhibit-4, formal F.I.R., Exhibit-5, injury report prepared by the police, Exhibit- 6, Para-1 to Para-50 of the case diary and Exhibit-6/1, remaining paragraphs of the case diary. Side by side, defence had also examined one DW viz. DW-1, Manoj Rai as well as had also exhibited sale deed Exhibit-A, rent receipt Exhibit-B, order passed in Complaint Case No.512 of 2006 Exhibit-C.
6. While challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, it has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant that the same happens to be based upon the evidence of interested, partisan, inimical witnesses and that being so, the judgment impugned is fit to be set aside. Furthermore, it has been submitted that right from inception of the prosecution, there happens to be specific assertion that appellant was not at all inclined to allow the informant to possess a chunk of land and that happens to be reason behind false implication of the appellant. Enmity is a double edged sword and so, the learned lower court should have considered the impropriatory visualizing from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, who apart from being partisan, inimical were not at all competent enough to depose against the appellant as not being an e
