Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.286 of 1999 (Against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence dated 06.10.1999 passed by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bhabua in connection with Sessions Trial No. 405 of 1988/201 of 1997) ====================================================== 1. Bachai Ram 2. Sachai Ram, Both sons of Shiwnath Ram 3. Chotu Chamar 4. Badri Chamar All residents of Village Sikandarpur P.S. Chainpur, District - Kaimur .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mrs. Nitu Sinha (Amicus Curiae) For the Respondent : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-02-2012 Mandhata Singh, J. 1. Fardbeyan of one Shobhoo Ram, P.W.3 of the case has been made basis for the F.I.R. which in brief is that there was Shradh Ceremony in the family of informant after the death of the informants’ sister-in-law (Bhabhi). After the dinner, guests and relatives came out from the house and were washing their hand in the lane. The same was opposed rather objected after appearance of accused-appellants, Bachai Ram and Sachai Ram. They were armed with lathi abused and asked as why they were washing their hand in lane. That was explained as due to the ceremonial function, they were washing their hand in the lane but was not to their satisfaction. They continued with their Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1999 dt.09-02-2012 2 abuse rather accused Budhu Ram, Sahati Ram, Bihari Ram, Syam Narain Ram, Barhu Ram, Mahendra Ram, Lalmuni Ram, Teju Ram, Paltu Ram, Sheonath Ram, Ram Sewak Ram, Chhotu Ram, Badri Ram, Basantu Ram also came. 2. Budhu Ram was armed with farsa and rest were armed with lathi. Family members of the informant also gathered. Further, it is said that on instigation of Bechai Ram and Sachai Ram, all the accused persons started to assault the informant and others by their respective arms. It is specified that Bechai Ram Sachai Ram, Badri Ram and Chhotu Ram assaulted the deceased Nathuni Ram. His nephew was assaulted by accused Budhu Ram when he came to save the informant. He fell down after receiving the injury on his head. Thereafter, accused Sahati Ram, Bihari Ram, Shyam Narain Ram, Barhu Ram and Mahendra Ram also assaulted him with lathi. 3. For Lalmuni Ram and Teju Ram, it is said that they assaulted the informant by means of lathi. For rest of the accused persons namely, Lalmuni Ram, Paltu Ram, Sheonath Ram, Ram Sewak Ram and Basantu Ram, it is said that they assaulted the son and daughter-in-law of informant and wife of Adhar Ram. After receiving injuries, informant fell down so he could not see the later part of the occurrence. After leaving of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1999 dt.09-02-2012 3 accused persons the place of occurrence, informant went to Police Station along with Nathuni Ram (deceased), Muna Ram, Sarjoo Ram, Lilawati Devi, Adhar Ram and Sanichari Devi, thereafter statement was given on his behalf. 4. After concluding the trial, the case is ended in conviction and sentence for the offence under [STATUTE] . 5. In all, 11 witnesses are examined on behalf of the prosecution. They are P.W.1 Sri Ram, P.W. 2 Ramadhar Ram, P.W. 3 Sobhu Ram, informant of the case, P.W. 4 Saryoo Ram, P.W.5 Shanichari Devi, P.W. 6 Lilawati Devi, P.W. 7 Muni Ram, P.W.8 Sundra Devi, P.W.9 Ishtia Karba, P.W.10 Dr. Shyam Sunder Singh and P.W.11 Dr. Radhika Mohan Saran. Ext. 1 is F.I.R., Ext. 2 injury report and Ext. 3 Postmortem Report. A single witness is examined on behalf of the defence to get exhibited the F.I.R. of Chainpur P.S. Case No. 5 of 1987 as exhibit-A. Exhibit-B is certified copy of statement of Medical Officer in G.R. Case No. 148 of 1987. Exhibit-C is certified copy of order dated 09.03.1989 to 07.04.1989 to show initiation of a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C., Exhibit-C/1 is certified copy of order passed under Section 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding and Exhibit-D is Judgment in Cr. Case No. 95 of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1999 dt.09-02-2012 4 1996. These documents are to show that enmity was there in between the parties and the incident did not take place in the manner as averred in the F.I.R. and stated by the witnesses. Enmity was there in between the parties is not denied in the case but it cuts both ways either for false implication or reason for taking place of the incident. Further, Ext. B is certified copy of statement of Doctor examined in the said counter case namely, Chainpur P.S. Case NO. 05 of 1987 that some of the accused persons had also received injuries, so the manner in which alleged incident is said to be taken place may not be believed. Same was raised in the Court below also and that has rightly been answered that certified copy of statement cannot be accepted for injuries to accused persons of this case. For its acceptance, examination of Doctor and remaining of injury report is required which is lacking. 6. Of prosecution witnesses, P.W.10 and P.W.11 are doctors. Of them, P.W.10 examined the deceased while he was alive and P.W.11 after his death while conducted postmortem. P.W.8 states that she did not watch the incident has been declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution but of no avail as nothing has appeared in her cross-examination. P.W.1 has not fully supported the prosecution case but states Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1999 dt.09-02-2012 5 about taking place of the incident without naming assailants. For that purposes only, his evidence can be read or accepted. 7. All rest of the witnesses are categorically stating about taking place of the incident and causing of assault by the accused-appellants to deceased Nathuni Ram. They have been doubted on the point that they are not constant on the point that all the four caused injuries on the person of deceased on same part of his body. F.I

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.