Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 189
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Kare Lal Mandal, son of Late Muni Lal Mandal - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.346 of 2015
Decided On : 06-03-2018
For the Appellants :Mr. Sanjeev Ranjan-Advocate
For the State : Mr. Z. Hoda-A.P.P.
For the Informant :Mr. Nand Gopal Mishra-Advocate
The prosecution must substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and the evidence of an injured witness is considered reliable. Proper identification of the place of occurrence is crucial, and the presence of blackening around a wound of entry is significant.
Headnote:
Section 307/149 IPC - Conviction and Sentencing - Section 324/149 IPC - Sentencing - Section 148 IPC - Sentencing - Section 27 of the Arms Act - Sentencing - Section 109 IPC - Sentencing - Section 101 of the Evidence Act - Interpretation - Chandrasekar and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu - Legal Principle
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty of various offenses under the IPC and Arms Act, related to a violent incident involving firing and injuries sustained by the informant. The defense claimed ownership of the disputed land and a counter-case was registered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence, including variations in the testimony of witnesses and improper identification of the place of occurrence. The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: Inconsistencies in prosecution evidence, proper identification of the place of occurrence, ownership of disputed land, and counter-case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to substantiate its case beyond all reasonable doubt and considered the evidence of the injured witness to be reliable. It also highlighted the importance of proper identification of the place of occurrence and the presence of blackening around the wound of entry.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed. The appellants were discharged from their liabilities.
Appellants, Kare Lal Mandal, Savita Mandal @ Sachida Mandal, Dharmbir Mandal, Pankaj Mandal and Matuki Mandal @ Matukdeo Mandal have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307/ 149 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo S.I. for seven years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for one month, additionally, under Section 324/ 149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years, under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years, under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo S.I. for three years, Matuki Mandal, additionally been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 109 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo S.I. for four years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.5,000/- and in default thereof, sentenced to undergo S.I. for one month, additionally, by the Additional Sessions Judge-5th, Munger in Sessions Case No.371 of 2003 vide judgment of conviction dated 15.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 18.06.2015.
2. PW-1, Patel Sharma, filed written report on 11.12.2002 at about 3.00 p.m. alleging inter alia that his land lies at village-Khaira Mauza. About six days before, he had harvested the paddy crop, which was being lifted today. At about 12.00 noon, Kare Lal Mandal, Sachida Mandal, Dharmbir Mandal, Pankaj Mandal, Matuki Mandal along with some unknown persons came from Khaira village. On an order of Matuki Mandal, they all began to fire indiscriminately with an intention to kill. Then had stated that Dharmbir, Sachida Mandal, Pankaj Mandal and Kare Lal Mandal fired from gun as a result of which, he sustained injury over his hand, back and buttock. They were firing indiscriminately. Anyhow, he ran there from, came to police station where is submitting written report.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Sangrampur P.S. Case No.143 of 2002 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge sheet facilitating the trial meeting with the ultimate result, 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 that of complete denial. There happens to be specific plea at their end that the land under dispute belongs to them, whereupon, on the alleged date and time of occurrence, prosecution party armed variously came, raided in order to dispossess and during course thereof, they used physical force fired as a result of which, informant sustained injury and for that, on the fard-bayan of Sushil Mandal, Sangrampur P. S. Case No.144 of 2002 has been registered. In order to substantiate the same, apart from ocular evidence, documentary evidence have also been placed.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether seven PWs, who are PW-1, Patel Sharma, PW-2, Ram Khelawan Sharma, PW-3, Dinesh Sharma, PW-4, Bishundeo Sharma, PW-5, Dr. Shailesh Prasad Singh, PW-6, Nandeshwar Bajpayee and PW-7, Satya Narayan Yadav as well as had also exhibited viz. Exhibit-1, written report, Exhibits-2, 3, injury/ supplementary injury reports, Exhibit-4, rent receipt, Exhibit-5, petition dated 25.05.2002 filed before Sangrampur P.S., Exhibit-6, certified copy of decree of Title Suit No.52 of 1981, Exhibit-7, certified copy of sale deed dated 20.07.1912, Exhibit-8, certified copy of sale deed dated 01.11.1956, marked M, X/1 for identification. Defence had also examined two DWs viz. DW-1, Dinesh Mandal and DW-2, Mahesh Yadav. Side by side, had also exhibited chargesheet of Sangrampur P. S. Case No.144 of 2002 as Exhibit-A, another chargesheet relating to Sangrampur P. S. Case No.11 of 1999 as Exhibit-A/1, F.I.R. of Case No.2M of 2006 Exhibit-B, order dated 02.09.1996 passed in Cr. Revision No.60 of 2003, Exhibit-B/1, order dated 11.08.2006 passed in Cr. Revision No.495 of 2002, Exhibit-B/2, signature affixed over petition filed i
