Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Prabhu Chaudhary Son of Late Ram Das Chaudhary - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.173, 196 of 2009
Decided On : 07-12-2018
Injury - Criminal Law - Section 307 IPC, Section 379 IPC - [Section 307 IPC, Section 379 IPC] - The court found the prosecution's case suffered from inherent defects and inconsistencies, including discrepancies in the date of occurrence and lack of proper explanation for the same. The court also highlighted the importance of proper identification of the accused and the reliability of the evidence of an injured witness. The judgment was set aside, and the appellants were discharged from bail liabilities.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Baban Choudhary, was found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, remaining under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years. Appellants, Durga Choudhary and Ramayan Choudhary, were found guilty of an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year. The case arose from an incident where the informant was assaulted and sustained injuries, leading to the registration of a criminal case and subsequent trial.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's case suffered from inherent defects, including discrepancies in the date of occurrence and lack of proper explanation for the same. The court also highlighted the importance of proper identification of the accused and the reliability of the evidence of an injured witness. Due to the deficiencies in the prosecution's case, the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court could not be sustained, and the appellants were discharged from bail liabilities.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of the prosecution's case, including discrepancies in the date of occurrence, proper identification of the accused, and the trustworthiness of the evidence of the injured witness.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proper identification of the accused and the reliability of the evidence of an injured witness. It also highlighted the need for a coherent and consistent prosecution case, including an explanation for discrepancies in the date of occurrence.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the lower court was set aside, and the appellants were discharged from bail liabilities.
JUDGMENT :
1. Cr. Appeal No. 173/2009 wherein Prabhu Chaudhary is the appellant and Cr. Appeal No. 196/2009 wherein Durga Choudhary, Ramayan Chaudhary, Baban Choudhary are the appellants, as arise out from common judgment of conviction dated 06.02.2009, order of sentence dated 10.02.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-FTC-1st, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 63/2007 whereby and whereunder, appellant, Baban Choudhary has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, remaining under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years, appellants, Durga Choudhary and Ramayan Choudhary have further been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 379 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently, on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.
2. In Cr. Appeal No. 173/2009, learned counsel for the appellant is present but due to non appearance of counsel on behalf of appellants of Cr. Appeal No. 196/2009, Sri Baban Roy, learned Advocate, who is present in the Court, has been requested to assist as an Amicus Curiae.
3. On 22.09.2006 while informant/injured, Subhash Choudhary (PW-4) was admitted at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Buxar, gave his Fardbeyan at about 2.35 AM disclosing therein that today i.e. on 20.09.2006 (wrongly mentioned), after sale of fish at Nayi Bazar, Buxar returned to Chausa by DMU train and from there he proceeded towards his house and as soon as reached near a culvert over a canal having torch in his hand, has seen in torch light, his co-villagers, Prabhu Chaudhary son of Late Ram Das Chaudhary, Durga Choudhary son of Jakhu Choudhary, Ramayan Chaudhary son of Sri Kishun Choudhary and Baban Choudhary son of Tulsi Choudhary having been armed with Katta who besieged him. Thereafter, Prabhu Choudhary assaulted him with fist. Durga snatched away torch and on the order of Ramayan, Baban shot at causing injury over his right thigh. During midst thereof, Ramayan Choudhary took away Rs. 940/-. On hearing sound of alarm, Ram Narayan Pal, Jagdish Singh and Ram Kripal Yadav came and lifted him to Dera of Ram Kripal Yadav and from there, to Chausa Bazar and then, he was taken to Buxar Sadar Hospital where he was undergoing treatment.
4. Buxar (M) PS Case No. 125/2006 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet, facilitating the trial, meeting with ultimate result, the subject matter of these appeals.
5. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC if of complete denial. It has further been pleaded that informant might have sustained injuries in different manner by different persons but on account of prevailing animosity, got the appellants involved with false and frivolous allegations. Furthermore, documentary evidences have also been adduced in support thereto.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, has examined altogether eleven PWs who are PW-1, Ram Kripal Yadav, PW-2, Ram Narayan Pal, PW-3, Munna Choudhary, PW4, Subhash Choudhary, PW-5, Achchhe Lal Choudhary, PW-6, Kanhaiya Choudhary, PW-7, Kali Charan Yadav, PW-8, Rajdeo Ram, PW-9, Dr. Bhupendra Nath, PW-10, Jagdish Yadav and PW-11, Ashok Kumar Singh, as well as has also exhibited Ext1, signature over Fard-e-beyan of attesting witnesses, Ext-2, injury report, Ext-2/A, X-ray, Ext-3, order dated 29.10.2007 passed in connection with Complaing Case No. 736C/1999, Ext4, order dated 31.07.1995 passed in connection with G.R. No. 1529/1991. Though no oral evidence has been adduced at the end of defence but, Ext-A, Judgment of Sessions Trial No. 267/2005/50/2005, Ext-A/1, Sessions Trial No. 242/2008, Ext-B, Certified copy of complaint case no. 642C/2006, Ext-B/1, certified of complaint case no. 330C/2001, have been exhibited.
7. Learned Amicus Curiae as well as learned counsel for the appel
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
