Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 711
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
Awadh Bihari Yadav and Others – Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 383 of 2003
Decided On : 03-02-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. Ranbir Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh.
The prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and non-compliance with procedural requirements can cause prejudice to the accused.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Appeal against Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Section 307, Section 323 - 145/1992 - The court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 307 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, giving them the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the judgment of the trial court convicting them under Section 307 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the appellants assaulted the informant, but the defense argued inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' statements and the delay in lodging the FIR.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' statements, lack of evidence to prove the place and manner of occurrence, and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Issues: Inconsistencies in witness statements, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of evidence to prove the place and manner of occurrence, and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must prove the place and manner of occurrence and individual assault by cogent and reliable evidence beyond all reasonable doubts. Non-compliance with procedural requirements can cause prejudice to the accused.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charges under Section 307 and Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, giving them the benefit of doubt.
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
1. Despite there being a prior notice of listing of the old cases including the present one, no one has appeared on behalf of the appellants to represent them. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present. In the circumstances, this Court appoints Sri Ranbir Singh, learned Advocate (A.O.R. No. 02623), who is present in the court to assist on behalf of appellants as Amicus Curiae.
2. Heard Sri Ranbir Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, on behalf of the appellants and Sri Sujit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.
3. The appellants in the present appeal have challenged the judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 4th, Bettiah, West Champaran in Session Trial No. 358/95 (G.R. No. 4054/92) arising out of Sikta (Balthar) P.S. Case No. 145/1992. By the impugned judgment dated 29th July, 2003, the learned trial court has convicted accused Awadh Bihari Yadav (appellant no. 1) under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years together with a sum of Rs. 2000/- as fine. The other accused namely, Yugal Kishor Yadav (appellant no. 2), Ram Niwas Yadav (appellant no. 3), Prabhash Yadav (appellant no. 4) and Ramchayan Yadav (appellant no. 5) have been held guilty under Section 323 I.P.C. and they have been sentenced six months rigorous imprisonment.
4. The prosecution of these appellants were initiated pursuant to the fardbeyan of one Rajdeo Mahto (PW-5) giving rise to Balthar P.S. Case No. 145/1992 under Section 324, 147, 148, 307/24 of the Indian Penal Code registered on 21.11.1992. The fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. in this case have been marked exhibit as Exhibit 3 & 4 respectively through the Investigating Officer (PW-6).
5. The allegation against the accused persons are that while the informant (PW-5) had gone to collect water from the hand-pump near the door of appellant no. 1, Awadh Bihari Yadav, his son Yugal Kishor Yadav objected the informant from collecting water on the ground that it was dampening the door areas of his house. Informant (PW-5) alleged that when he told Yugal Kishor Yadav (appellant no. 2) that the informant was not collecting water from the inside courtyard of the hosue of appellant no. 2, a quarrel broke out they indulged in abusing. At this stage, Ram Nivas Yadav (appellant no. 3) allegedly ordered to kill the informant, on this Awadh Bihari Yadav (appellant no. 1) brought a Farsa from his house and attacked the informant on his head which caused a cut on his head. Ram Nivas Yadav (appellant no. 3) allegedly gave a Farsa blow which hit the left hand of the informant. Ramchayan Yadav and Prabhash Yadav allegedly gave him a lathi blow on the back. PW-5 claimed that the accused persons are neighbourers and co-villagers. Kamruddin and persons from village Biragiri came and rescued the informant.
6. It is further alleged that the informant fell down in unconscious condition thereupon his brother Basudeo Mahto brought him to government hospital, Sikta on a tyre gari where he was under treatment. Informant has further stated that on 20.11.1992, he could not give his statement because he was in unconscious condition and that he was making his statement when he regained his sense on 21.11.1992 at 8.30 A.M. He put his thumb impression on the fardbeyan which was recorded by Sri B.M. Pandey, (Investigating Officer) in presence of one Basudeo Mahto and Lalbabu Prasad. Sri Pandey the then A.S.I. and the two witnesses shown on the fardbeyan who have put their signature were not examined in course of trial.
7. Investigation was handed over to Sri Mithlesh Kumar, ASI. After investigation was completed by Sri Mithilesh Kumar Mishra, I.O. (PW-6), a charge-sheet was submitted in the court of learned C.J.M. Bettiah. Vide order dated 22.07.1998, learned C.J.M. took cognizance of the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Later on the charges were farmed vide order dated 15.04.1998. Accused Awadh Bihari Yadav
