Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 825
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.
SUKHAL RAI, SON OF NOKHEY LAL RAI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF BIHAR - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2013
Decided On : 26-10-2018
Md Helal Ahmad, Bikas Kumar Shukla, Binod Bihari Singh, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies, delay in filing the FIR, and lack of objective evidence can weaken the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal - Section 304(II)/34, Section 323, Section 337, Section 307, Section 302/34 - The court discussed the evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies, the delay in filing the FIR, and the lack of objective evidence. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an appeal against a conviction under Section 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons assaulted the deceased, resulting in his death. The defense argued that there were contradictions in witness testimonies, delay in filing the FIR, and lack of objective evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in witness testimonies, delay in filing the FIR, and lack of objective evidence. As a result, the court acquitted the appellants.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution could prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution's case was not substantiated due to contradictions in witness testimonies, delay in filing the FIR, and lack of objective evidence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants from the charges levelled against them and discharged them from the liability of their bail bonds.
Prakash Chandra Jaiswal, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned APP for the State on this criminal appeal.
2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Order of conviction dated 12.12.2012 and order of sentence dated 14.12.2012 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2010 arising out of Kamtaul P.S. Case No. 128 of 2009, whereby the learned trial court convicted the accused, namely, Sukhal Rai, Shyam Choupal, Rohit Choupal and Sobhit Choupal for the offence punishable under Section 304(II)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for five years and also slapped them with the fine of Rs. 2000/- each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo S.I. for six months under the aforesaid section.
3. Factual matrix of the case is that Kamtaul P.S. Case No.128 of 2009 was initially instituted under Sections 323, 337 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently added with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons, namely, Sukhal Rai and Shobhit Choupal on the basis of the fardbeyan of Jitu Choupal, S/o Late Jadu Choupal recorded by S.I. Shivajee Rai, O.P. Benta, P.S.- Kamtaul on 05.09.2009 at 05:30 PM at Unit ward of Dr. Laljee Choudhary of D.M.C.H., Darbhanga with the allegation in succinct that on 29.08.2009 at 07:30 PM, informant had gone to flour mill of Shivji Sah located in Mohalla Jahangir Tola for grinding wheat, in the meantime cash of Rs. 300/- was fallen from the pocket of Sukhal Rai which was picked up by Shyam Choupal. But due to previous animosity, Sukhal Rai blaming the informant of taking his money started slating him. On protest made by him, Sukhal Rai with intention to do away with his life twisted his neck inflicting fracture injury in his neck and also assaulted on his right hand by means of brick inflicting injury on his elbow. Sustaining injury, he fell down on the ground. Then Shobhit Choupal assaulted him by means of helm inflicting injury on his right knee. The owner of the flour mill namely Shivji Sah and Others witnessed the occurrence.
4. Aforesaid case was investigated by the police and on conclusion of the investigation, I.O. submitted chargesheet against the aforesaid accused persons under Sections 323, 337, 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. On receiving the chargesheet and the case diary and perusing the same, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of sessions and after commitment and on transfer finally the case came in the seisin of 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga for trial.
6. Charge against the accused Sukhal Rai, Shyam Choupal, Rohit Choupal and Sobhit Choupal was framed under Sections 307 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge was read over and explained to them by the Court to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate its case, in ocular evidence, the prosecution has examined altogether twelve prosecution witnesses namely, Shivji Sah as PW-1, Dr. Ramanand Chaudhary who has conducted the autopsy of the cadaver of the deceased Jitu Choupal as PW-2, Firangi Yadav as PW-3, Raja Ram Shah as PW-4, Manka Chaupal as PW-5, Sita Devi as PW-6, Uchit Chaupal as PW-7, Doma Das as PW-8, Roop Lal Chaupal as PW-9, Bimla Devi as PW-10, Fuleshwar Chaupal as PW-11 and Ram Dayal Kumar as PW-12. Out of the aforesaid witnesses, PW-1, PW-4, PW-5 and PW-9 turned hostile. Prosecution has also filed and proved some documents by way of documentary evidence in the case.
8. Statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal procedure. The case of the defence is complete denial of the occurrence claiming themselves to be innocent. Accused persons neither adduced any ocular nor documentary evidence in buttress of their case.
9. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, the learned trial court passed the aforesaid Judgment and Order
