Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 736
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Bharti & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondents
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.438, 481 of 2015
Decided On : 05-04-2018
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shivendra Prasad, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr. Bipin Kumar, A.P.P.
The reliability of the evidence of injured witnesses and the need for evidence to substantiate each charge.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under various sections of IPC - Section 147, Section 148, Section 323, Section 324, Section 325, Section 149, and Section 504 - The court discussed the misapplication of Section 149, the reliability of injured witnesses' testimony, and the lack of evidence for certain charges.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty for an offence punishable under various sections of the IPC for assaulting the informant and his family members. The defence claimed a land dispute as the motive for the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the injured witnesses to be reliable and accepted in its entirety. The court also noted the lack of evidence for certain charges and modified the sentences accordingly.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of the injured witnesses' testimony, the misapplication of Section 149, and the lack of evidence for certain charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the evidence of a person injured in the same occurrence is generally considered to be very reliable. The court also emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate each charge.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, and the sentences were modified. The appellants were directed to surrender before the lower court to serve out the remaining part of the sentence.
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
1. Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.438 of 2015 wherein Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Bharti, Raju Thakur, Kako Thakur @ Jeevan Thakur are the appellants and Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 481 of 2015 wherein Arun Thakur @ Arun Kumar Thakur is the appellant commonly originate against the judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2015 and order of sentence dated 08.07.2015 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Naugachia, Bhagalpur in Sessions Trial No.538/2011 on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. Appellants, Abhishek Thakur @ Abhishek Bharti, Raju Thakur, Kako Thakur @ Jeevan Thakur, Arun Thakur @ Arun Kumar Thakur have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years, under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for two years, under Section 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for one year, under Section 324 of the IPC to undergo S.I. for three years, “to undergo S.I. for four years for an offence punishable under Section 149 IPC”, to undergo S.I. for four years for an offence punishable under Section 325 of the IPC, S.I. for two years under Section 504 of the IPC and Arun Thakur has separately been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo S.I. for ten years as well as to pay fine appertaining to rupees five thousand and in default thereof, to undergo S.I. for three months, additionally with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.
3. Before proceeding ahead, the judgment impugned suggests that either the learned lower court had acted in mechanical manner or he has no judicial approach and that happens to be reason behind that same accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 147 IPC as well as under Section 148 of the IPC which ought not to be. In likewise manner, the learned Presiding Officer failed to construe that Section 149 did not attract sentence independently rather it deals with vicarious liability of an individual being member of an unlawful assembly during course of commission of the crime and so, is to be governed by the main offence for which, there was an unlawful assembly possessing common object. Furthermore, the accused having been charged under Section 147 IPC would not be found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC. So, the learned Presiding Officer is requested not to indulge in such kind of activity henceforth while delivering judgment and for that office is required to serve a copy of judgment upon the P.O. concerned. Apart from this, the learned lower court also failed to incorporate the defence, the materials having placed in defence and by such activity, shown inadaptability.
4. Manoj Thakur, PW.5 gave his fardbeyan on 18.12.2010 at about 03:00 PM at his village-Kharik Bazar disclosing therein that on the same day at about 02:30 PM while he was sitting at his Darwaja, his co-villager Arun Thakur, Abhishek Thakur, Kunal Thakur came and began to abuse which was protested by him and during course thereof, Arun Thakur who was armed with spade gave blow, causing injury over his hand, face, wherefrom blood had oozen out. His son Pappu Thakur (PW.1) and daughter-in-law Rekha Devi (PW.2) came in rescue who were assaulted by Arun Thakur, Abhishek Thakur and Kunal Thakur. Then thereafter, Raju Thakur and Koko Thakur joined them who assaulted his wife Punam Devi. The motive for the occurrence has been shown as the accused alleges that his son, daughter-in-law abuse them whenever they gone over their roof. After registration of Kharik P.S. Case No.152/2010 police took up investigation, and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted facilitating the trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.
5. 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 comp
