Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.412 of 2000 dt.06-08-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.412 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20TH NOVEMBER, 2000 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21ST NOVEMBER, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 298 OF 1988 BY SHRI VIVEKA NAND JHA, 3RD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MUZAFFARPUR =========================================================== UDAY SHANI SON OF LATE RAM SWAROOP SAHNI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAGHAI, POLICE STATION SIWAI PATTI, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. RAKESH KUMAR SINHA, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-08-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 20th of November, 2000 and order of sentence dated 21st November, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 298 of 1988 by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-I) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted on the fardbeyan of one Choya Lal Sahani (Exhibit-1) alleging therein that on 10.10.1985 at about 06.00 A.M. his daughter-in-law Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.412 of 2000 dt.06-08-2012 (Patuhu), Inarwati Devi was returning from attending the call of nature. When she came near the door of Suraj Sahani, it is alleged that Uday Shani armed with an iron rod, Ram Sewak Rai, Uma Shankar Rai, Mahadeo Sahani Beni Sahani, Gonour Sahani, Musafir Sahani, Jagdish Sahani and Mahesh Sahani armed with lathies began to assault Inarwati Devi. Uday Sahani gave her blow with the iron rod on her back while the others assaulted her on various parts of the body. The following persons were witnesses to the occurrence. Ram Ashish Das, P.W.1, Suraj Sahani, P.W.2 and Jagdish Sahani, P.W. 4 (declared hostile). Ramchandra Sahani (N.E.) and wife of Suraj Sahani. They carried Inarwati Devi on a cot to the hospital. The informant has stated that the doctor had given him a slip to be handed over to the Daroga of the Police Station so that the fardbeyan of the informant could be recorded. It is alleged by the informant that when he went to give the slip to the Daroga, he was out somewhere on duty. While leaving Police Station that Daroga reached the Police Station, and, as such, the informant gave him the requisition. The Daroga refused to come. In the meantime, Inarwati Devi died on 11.10.1985. The fardbeyan was recorded after her death on 12.10.1985. 3. While this case was being heard by the Trial Court an application was filed under Section 302 of the Indian Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.412 of 2000 dt.06-08-2012 Penal Code to issue notice to the another accused persons named in the First Information Report which was rejected as there was no evidence against them. An application was also filed by the P.P. to amend the charges. The application was allowed. The witnesses thereafter were examined on the amended charge which made out an offence under [STATUTE] . 4. Eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.1, Ramashish Das has supported the prosecution version. He is said to be cousin of the informant. He claims to be a „Sadhu‟ and lives in the Math. In his examination-in-chief he has stated that while he was preparing to perform Puja, he saw that Uday Sahani armed with a rod going towards the daughter-in-law of Choya Lal Sahani. He alleges that Uday Sahani assaulted Inarwati Devi as a result of which she fell down. This witness does not support the allegation in the First Information Report that Inarwati Devi was assaulted by the other persons as well. After amendment when P.W.1, Ramashish Das was first examined, he has specifically stated that he first saw Inarwati Devi after she had fallen to the ground due to her injury. In other words, this witness has in fact denied that he has seen the manner in which the injury was inflicted. 5. P.W.2, Suraj Sahani is named in the First Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.412 of 2000 dt.06-08-2012 Information Report as a witness. He admits that he had some differences with the appellant Uday Sahani as there was a Title Suit in the year 1963 pending between this witness and Uday Sahani. In his cross-examination on record he stated that when Inarwati Devi was taken to the hospital, he was not present with them. He denies the allegation of theft by the appellant and assault by the accused persons mentioned in the First Information Report. In the cross- examination conducted after the amendment of the charges, this witness takes a round about turn, as he has stated that he saw Inarwati Devi for the first time when she had already been assaulted and was lying on the ground, thus, giving a go by to the earlier version of the accused. 6. P.W.3, Lachminiya Devi is the wife of P.W.2, she along with her husband and in fact P.W. 6, Phool Kumari Devi has stated that all three ladies had returned from the field, were washing their feet and hands at the water pump just near the house of P.W.3, Inarwati Devi had moved on, when she was assaulted by the appellant. At paragraph 7 it has been stated that Inarwati Devi has four children. The eldest son is married. Attention of this witness has been called to a statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. She denies in her statement before the Investigating Officer that she had stated before him that Inarwati Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.412 of 2000 dt.06-08-2012 Devi was assaulted by several other persons. The Investigating Officer at paragraph 13 has

Applicable IPC Section: 302

Statute Text:
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder. Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.