Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Madan Sahni S/o Late Sarjug Sahni – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 208 of 2015
Decided On : 21-03-2018
For the Appellants : Mr. U.K. Shukla, Mr. Rajesh Ranjan.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta.
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh, Mr. Poonam Kumari.
The presence of a counter-case filed by the accused does not automatically discredit the prosecution's version of events, and the prosecution is not obligated to explain each injury sustained by the accused unless they are grievous in nature.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 148, 307, 304 PART-II/149 IPC] - [MADAN SAHNI, JULUM SAHNI, PRAMOD SAHNI, KAILASH SAHNI, KISHUN SAHNI, BINOD SAHNI, BISHUN SAHNI, SONAR SAHNI @ SUNAR SAHNI AND SUBODH SAHNI] - [ASSAULT] - [CONVICTION] - [SENTENCE] - [APPEAL DISMISSED]
Fact of the Case:
Appellants were convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 148, 307, and 304 Part-II/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for their involvement in an unlawful assembly that resulted in assault and the death of one person. The incident occurred due to a dispute over a she-goat grazing on the appellants' field. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses, while the defense did not produce any evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had successfully substantiated its case based on the evidence presented by the witnesses. The court noted that the injuries sustained by the victims, as well as the presence of blood at the scene of the incident, corroborated the prosecution's version of events. The court also considered the fact that the appellants had instituted a counter-case against the victims, which, in the absence of any evidence to support it, did not detract from the prosecution's case.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had successfully established its case against the appellants. 2. Whether the presence of a counter-case filed by the appellants affected the credibility of the prosecution's version.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to support its case, including the testimonies of injured witnesses and the presence of blood at the scene of the incident. The court found that the injuries sustained by the victims were consistent with the prosecution's account of the events. 2. The court held that the mere presence of a counter-case filed by the appellants did not affect the credibility of the prosecution's version, as the appellants failed to provide any evidence to support their claims.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by the lower court.
1. Appellants, Madan Sahni, Julum Sahni, Pramod Sahni, Kailash Sahni, Kishun Sahni, Binod Sahni, Bishun Sahni, Sonar Sahni @ Sunar Sahani and Subodh Sahni have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 2000/- each in default thereof, to undergo RI for 9 months, under Section 307 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof, to undergo RI for 1 year additionally, under Section 304 Part-II/149 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 10 years as well as to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo RI for 1 year additionally, with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Muzaffapur in Sessions Trial No. 537/08 and 538/08 vide judgment of conviction dated 13.03.2015 and order of sentence dated 20.03.2015.
2. Bashisht Sahni (PW-7) gave his Fard-e-beyan on 28.09.2007 at about 9.30 PM while he was admitted at Paroo Hospital in an injured condition disclosing therein that on the same day at about 7.30 PM he along with his father Chandeshwar Sahni was sitting at his Darwaza, at that very time his covillagers, Madan Sahni armed with country made pistol, Bishun Sahni armed with Bhala, Subodh Sahni armed with Dab, Julum Sahni, Bishun Sahni, Sonar Sahni and Kailash Sahni armed with Lathi respectively, Pramod Sahni armed with pistol and Binod Sahni armed with sword forming an unlawful assembly came and began to abuse. They further said that why his she-goat has gone to their field over which he replied that it will not go but don't abuse whereupon all the accused persons began to assault him as well as his father. His mother, Saraswati Devi, Bhabho, Urmila Devi and cousin brother Ramlal rushed in rescue who were also brutally assaulted by them. They raised alarm whereupon villagers came and rescued them. During midst of assault, Pramod had given a blow by butt of pistol over his head as a result of which, he sustained injury whereupon, blood oozen out. His father became unconscious. They all were lifted to hospital. His father, being under precarious condition, has been referred to SKMCH. It has also been disclosed that Pramod Sahni, during midst of occurrence, took away mobile belonging to his father.
3. Initially, Paroo PS Case No. 183/2007 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447 323, 324, 307, 504 of the IPC but during course of conduction of investigation, as Chandeshwar died while undergoing treatment at SKMCH, on account thereof, vide order dated 19.11.2007, Section 302 of the IPC was added and in the aforesaid background charge-sheet was also submitted at different stages inconsonance with appearance of the accused persons whereupon two sessions trial bearing Sessions Trial No. 537/2008 as well as Sessions Trial No. 538/2008 were drawn up but, before stage of framing of charge vide order dated 20.07.2009 both the Sessions Trial were amalgamated and accordingly, proceeded meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of the 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 of the occurrence. It has also been pleaded that the prosecution party were aggressors who brutally assaulted the members of accused persons and for that they have instituted a criminal case and only to put safeguard upon their interest got this case instituted. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence has been adduced on behalf of defence.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether 11 PWs. those are, PW-1, Jaliya Dev, PW-2, Urmila Devi, PW-3, Champa Devi, PW-4, Ram Lal Sahni, PW-5, Mantosh Kumar, PW-6, Sarswati Devi, PW-7, Bashistha Sahni, PW
