Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Suraj Rajbansi S/o Late Baldeo Rajbanshi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 266 of 2015
Decided On : 19-03-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Y.C. Verma, Mr. Anuj Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh.
The prosecution must prove its case positively, and the lack of crucial witness examination and inconsistencies in evidence can cause serious prejudice to the accused, justifying setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
IPC - Offence under Section 307/34 IPC - Arms Act, Section 27 - [Section 307/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Arms Act] - The court found the appellants guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo RI for 10 years, as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 2000 each. The court also sentenced them to undergo RI for 3 years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The judgment discusses the evidence presented, including ocular evidence and the lack of examination of the doctor and Investigating Officer, and ultimately sets aside the conviction and sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an altercation between the appellants and the victims, resulting in the victims sustaining firearm injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed a group and pressured the victims to join, leading to the assault. The defence denied the allegations, claiming a strained relationship between the parties and a conspiracy to harass them.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate its case beyond reasonable doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence, lack of examination of the doctor and Investigating Officer, and the changing motive presented by the informant. As a result, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the witnesses, the consistency of the evidence, the lack of examination of the doctor and Investigating Officer, and the changing motive presented by the informant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution must prove its case positively and that the lack of examination of crucial witnesses and inconsistencies in the evidence caused serious prejudice to the appellants, justifying setting aside the conviction and sentence.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
1. Appellants, Suraj Rajbansi, Punit Manjhi, Girani Manjhi have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307/34 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default thereof, to undergo SI for one month additionally, under Section 27 of the Arms Act, sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction dated 09.04.2015, order of sentence dated 13.04.2015 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-4th, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 70/90/111/2014.
2. PW-6, Bundi Rajbansi gave his Fard-e-beyan at Sakra Mor in the midst of way to police station on account of meeting with the police officials on 07.09.1986 at 12.15 PM, alleging inter-alia, that on the same day at about 10.30 AM, while he was returning from Baliar Khandha and was about to reach his house, as the maize crop of Ragho Manjhi was damaged by the pig of Kuleshwar Manjhi whereupon they both were quarreling in front of house of Chamari Manjhi, he intervened and got the matter pacified. Then thereafter, while he was proceeding ahead toward his house, at that very time, accused, Suraj Rajbansi, Girani Manjhi, Kuleshwar Manjhi, and Punit Manjhi armed with country made gun, came. Suraj Rajbansi ordered to fire followed by first firing having at his end causing injury over his right hand, chest, face as a result of which, he fell down. Naresh came in rescue who was shot at by Girani Manjhi. Then thereafter, Kuleshwar and Punit also fired but, they have not sustained injury. It has further been disclosed that whole occurrence committed in a Gali in front of his house. On hearing sound of firing as well as alarm raised by them, Ragho Manjhi, Karu Manjhi, Girani Rajbanshi, Sitaram Rajbansi and others came who lifted them to hospital and during midst thereof at Sakra Chowk, they met with police officials whom, he has given Fard-e-beyan. The motive for occurrence has been suggested as accused persons have formed a group and were pressurizing them to join their group which, he declined as a result of which, he along with his brother has been assaulted.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid Fard-e-beyan, Hasua PS Case No. 68/86 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 the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that of complete denial. It has further been pleaded that both the parties are on strained relationship since before and under the garb of aforesaid strained relationship, Naresh Rajbansi had instituted a case at an earlier occasion wherein they got clean acquittal. Then thereafter, only to harass them, they have hatched a conspiracy whereunder the instant case has been filed. Though no ocular evidence has been adduced but Judgment of Sessions Trial No. 19/91/188/88 has been made exhibit as Exhibit-A.
5. It has been submitted at the end of appellants that before the learned lower court, it was pleaded that on account of inconsistency amongst the witnesses, neither there was an occasion for PWs. 1, 2, 3, 4 to see the occurrence and on account thereof, there happens to be material development in their evidence whereupon and that being so, their evidences were fit to be discarded. In likewise manner, it has been urged that injury if any, having sustained by PWs. 5 and 6, considering their evidence, is not at all found duly proved, more particularly, in the background of non examination of doctor but, the learned lower court perused the injury report available in the case diary and inferred that whatever injuries were sustained by PWs. 5 and 6 were that of fire arm whereupon convicted and sentenced the appellants which was not at all permissible in the eye of law. Consequent thereupon, the finding would not survive.
6. In order to subst
