Ram Daresh Ray @ Ramdresh Ray @ Tunna Ray vs State of Bihar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Pat) 835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SUDHIR SINGH and CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.1017 of 2017
(9.10.2023)
Ram Daresh Ray @ Ramdresh Ray @ Tunna Ray ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar ... Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s Harsh Singh, Avneesh Pradhan, Kamal Kishor Singh.
For the Respondent: Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 323, 448 and 302 – Wrongful restraint, hurt, house trespass and murder of infant – Life sentence – Prosecution's narrative about manner of occurrence, specifically attributing injuries to a fall, does not find support from medical evidence, nor has prosecution alleged that appellant assaulted deceased with a hard and blunt object – Inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence is a most fundamental defect in prosecution case and unless reasonably explained, it is sufficient to discredit entire case – Investigating Officer has provided a categorical statement during his testimony, affirming that he found no evidence of injuries on any individuals – There exists substantial gap in prosecution's narrative and credibility of their case – Prosecution has not assigned any motive against appellant for commission of murder of deceased – Absence of any motive would certainly weigh in favour of accused – Prosecution has not provided any explanation as to what caused delay in lodging report even when police station was just a kilometre away and child was immediately rushed to hospital and declared dead – Prosecution has failed to prove charge framed against appellant – Conviction of appellant cannot be sustained – Judgment of conviction and order of sentence set aside. (Paras 8 to 11)

Sudhir Singh, J. – The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.06.2017 and the order of sentence dated 20.06.2017 passed by Shri Rajendra Pratap Singh, 8th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2017 arising out of Ahiyapur P.S. case No.118 of 2015, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 341, 323, 448 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (referred to ‘I.P.C.’), and has been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 302 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, additional imprisonment for one year, simple imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of I.P.C. and simple imprisonment for six months each under Sections 323 and 448 of I.P.C. The sentences of the appellant was directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, as per the written report of informant Madhu Devi (PW 10), wife of Santosh Rai, submitted before Officer-Incharge, Ahiyapur P.S. on 16.02.2015 at 6:15 p.m. in S.K.M.C.H, emergency ward, is that the sister-in-law (Nanad) of informant, namely, Rinku Devi wife of Ram Bhagat Rai was living in her Maike at Shekhpur before 5-6 months ago due to assault by her husband. On 16.02.2015 at 7:00 a.m., husband of informant’s Nanad, namely, Ram Bhagat Rai, father-in-law of informant’s Nanad, namely, Ram Daresh Ray @ Tunna Ray along with Suresh Rai and Pawan Rai came her home and started assaulting the sister-in-law (Rinku Devi) of informant. To protect the sister-in-law, the informant put her son on cot and went to intervene, meanwhile Ram Bhagat Rai ordered to kill the son of Santosh and upon which Ram Daresh Rai took the son of informant from the cot and threw him on the floor, as a result the son of the informant cried and became unconscious. The informant took her son to S.K.M.C.H. for treatment, where the doctor declared him dead. The accused persons were also searching the husband of informant to kill him and said that they will kill him anytime. The sister-in-law (Nanad) of informant and Priyanshu Kumari were also injured.

3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Ahiyapur P.S. case No.118 of 2015 was registered. The police after investigation submitted charge sheet and thereafter cognizance was taken by the Jurisdictional Magistrate and then the case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether thirteen witnesses, namely, Rinku Devi (PW 1), Shila Devi (PW 2), Bachha Rai (PW 3), Kishori Rai (PW 4), Raj Mangal Rai (PW 5), Dilip Kumar Yadav (PW 6), Harendra Rai (PW 7), Saroj Kumar Yadav (PW 8), Santosh Rai (PW 9), Madhu Devi (PW 10), Parmanand Singh (PW 11), Dr. Bipin Kumar (PW 12) and Shiv Chandra Prasad Singh (PW 13). In support of its case, the prosecution has also produced exhibits as Ext.1 (postmortem report), Ext.2 (inquest report) and Ext.3 (fardbeyan). The defence also examined two witnesses, namely, Vasudev Rai (DW 1) and Rajdev Rai (DW 2). After conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as indicated above.

5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence suffered from several infirmities that had been overlooked by the learned trial Court, rendering the impugned judgment unsustainable in the eyes of the law. The learned counsel argued that there are material discrepancies in the testimonies of the eyewitnesses amongst themselves. He submitted that no independent witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. Furthermore, the learned counsel pointed out that the manner of occurrence is highly doubtful, as the medical evidence renders the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses implausible and contradicts the possibility of their testi