IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and SHAILENDRA SINGH, JJ.
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 186 of 2024
(10.9.2024)
Urmila Devi ... Appellant
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378 – Attempt to murder, wrongful restraint, insult, criminal intimidation and rioting – Common object – Appeal against acquittal – Prosecution has been able to prove a case under Section 323 and 325 IPC only against two respondents – On the basis of prosecution evidence, it may be safely concluded that prosecution has been able to prove place of occurrence beyond all reasonable doubts – Trial Court has completely erred in appreciating evidences on record on this point – This is appeal against acquittal and High Court should not lightly interfere with order of acquittal – However, date of occurrence, time of occurrence, place of occurrence and manner of occurrence have been duly proved – Judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court partly set aside – Matter listed for hearing on question of sentence. (Paras 33, 36 to 40)
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.—This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the wife of the informant (since deceased) for setting aside the judgment dated 31.10.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 615 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment’) arising out of Gaighat P.S. Case No. 227 of 2014 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Muzaffarpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) whereby and whereunder the learned trial court has been pleased to acquit the accused persons who are Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 in the appeal of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’).
Prosecution case
2. The prosecution case is based on the fardebyan of one Tapeshwar Rai recorded by Vivekanand Mishra, ASI, Gaighat police station in Shri Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Muzaffarpur (‘SKMCH, Muzaffarpur’). The informant alleged that on 13.07.2014 at about 04:00 pm, while he was engaged in grazing his buffalo in Ladaur Gachhi, Ram Jatan Rai, Ramesh Rai, Naresh Rai, Ranjeet Rai, Sanjeet Rai and Sawan Rai came there. They had a previous enmity with the informant for the reason that the informant had deposed as a witness in Gaighat P.S. Case No. 309 of 2011. It has been further alleged that Ram Jatan Rai asked the informant as to why he had deposed and when the informant told him that he had deposed the truth, Ram Jatan Rai ordered for killing him, upon which Naresh Rai assaulted the informant on his head by a rod which was warded off by the informant with his right hand but Naresh Rai again hit him causing fracture in his hand. Ramesh Rai assaulted him by lathi, causing fracture injuries on leg. Sawan Rai assaulted him with lathi on his chest and injured his ribs. Ranjit Rai assaulted him with butt of pistol. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away towards their house. On hearing his shouts, several people assembled and took him to Gaighat Hosptial from where he was referred to SKMCH, Muzaffarpur.
3. On the basis of the fardebyan of the informant, Gaighat P.S. Case No. 227 of 2014 was registered, after completion of investigation, police submitted a charge-sheet under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 504 and 506 of the IPC against all the accused persons (Respondent Nos. 2 to 7). The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences vide order dated 02.04.2015 and on finding that the offences are triable by the Court of Sessions, the records were committed to the Court of Sessions. After receipt of the records in the court of learned Sessions Judge, the charges were read over and explained to the accused persons who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. On behalf of the prosecution, seven witnesses were examined and as many as six exhibits were exhibited. The list of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution exhibits are shown hereunder in a tabular form for ready reference:—
Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Ram Padarath Rai
PW-2 Tapeshwar Rai (Informant)
PW-3 Sanjay Rai
PW-4 Vivekanand Mishra
PW-5 Dr.Sudhir Kumar
PW-6 Dr. Babua Nand Mishra
PW-7 Umesh Mishra
List of Exhibits
Exhibit-1 Fardbeyan
Exhibit-2 Signature of Sanjay Rai on fardebyan
Exhibit-2/1 Endorsement on Fardbeyan to register case
Exhibit-3 Signature of Officer Incharge on formal FIR
Exhibit-4 Requisition letter for injury report
Exhibit-5 Injury report
Exhibit-6 Injury report
Analysis of the oral testimonies of the Prosecution Witnesses
5. Ram Padarath Rai (PW-1) has stated that he had seen the occurrence while returning home from Benibad. He had reached near Ladaur Gachhi at about 04:00 pm and saw that Ramesh, Naresh and Ranjit were arguing with Tapeshwar (the informant) for having deposed in some case. A large crowd had gathered there. This witness has stated that Ramesh, Naresh and Ranjit hit Tapeshwar with lathi and rod. His hand was fractured in warding off the blows and right leg was also fractured. He had accompanied Tapeshwar to Benibad, then to Gaighat Hospital
The prosecution must prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence resulted in the acquittal of the accused as intent to kill was not established.
The court ruled that mere infliction of simple injuries does not imply intent to kill, emphasizing that the determination of culpability under Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused's intention.
The presumption of innocence is paramount in criminal trials; an acquittal should only be overturned if the prosecution proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The prosecution must prove intent and circumstances for a conviction under Section 307 IPC; otherwise, the accused benefit from reasonable doubt.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.