Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.366 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SMT. REKHA KUMARI, SESSIONS JUDGE, BUXAR IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 487 OF 1991 ARISING OUT OF BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION CASE NO. 190 OF 1990 =========================================================== BADRI SINGH @ BADRI KOERI, SON OF GUPUT KOERI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHARKAR, POLICE STATION BRAHAMPUR, DISTRICT BUXAR .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR.BAXI S.R.P. SINHA, SR. ADV. MR. MRIGENDRA PRATAP SINGH, ADV. FOR THE S T A T E : MS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-10-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The sole appellant has been found guilty under [STATUTE] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, failure to pay fine, entailed three months further rigorous imprisonment by the Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 487 of 1991. 2. The informant of this case, namely, Gauri Shanker Ram, has given his fardbayan on 11.12.1990 at 1 AM. The informant has stated that his son alongwith his two brothers were sleeping in the shed (Pilani). The informant woke up when he heard the sound of firing. He went outside and found his son Rashtrapati Ram in an injured condition. His son indicated that two persons had shot him. In the fardbayan, it is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 2 / 4 2 specifically stated that the informant has no enmity in the village, and therefore, he cannot disclose the persons who had shot his son. 3. In this case, the name of the appellant and one Uma Singh has been disclosed after two days of the occurrence by the injured. The prosecution has tried to explain the delay by stating that the injured was the only person who had the opportunity to see the miscreants and since the injured had remained unconscious for two days, he was in a position to disclose the name of the person(s) who fired at him only after gaining consciousness. 4. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW 6 Pavetra Kumar Verma is the doctor who had examined the injured. I shall begin with the evidence of the doctor, PW 6, who has stated that he had examined Rashtrapati Ram and found multiple small round bleeding wounds on the face, front of the neck and upper chest wall with much swelling on the neck and face. According to PW 6, the injuries were simple in nature. PW 6 referred an X-ray for the injured, although the X-ray plate was produced, there is no report of the Radiologist regarding the said X-ray. The X-ray has not been marked as exhibit and is not available on the records of this case. Thus, this Court is not aware of the fact whether pellets were lodged in the persons of the injured Rashtrapati Ram. One fact which is quite evident from the report of the doctor, is that the injuries were simple in Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 3 / 4 3 nature and in ordinary circumstances, it cannot be believed that a person would remain unconscious for two days because of the injuries. Even if, it is presumed that Rashtrapati Ram fainted because of the shock on receiving the injuries aforesaid, it cannot be believed that he had remained unconscious for two days. In this context, the evidence of PW 4 (the injured) and PW 5, the informant, have to be considered by this Court. 5. PW 4 Rashtrapati Ram is the injured of this case. According to him, he was sitting in the shed (Pilani) alongwith his two brothers, PW 1 Mantri Ram and PW 2 Shripati Ram, when two persons allegedly came to the place of occurrence and fired at him. According to this witness, the genesis of the occurrence was a piece of GAIR MAZARUA AAM land, which had been occupied by the informant i.e. the father of PW 4. He has specifically alleged that Badri Singh, the appellant gave the order whereupon Uma Singh fired at him. In his enthusiasm to prove this case, he has stated that he had to wake up his brothers after the firing took place, which is improbable, as nobody can remain sleeping on hearing the sound of firing. 6. PW 5 Gauri Shanker Ram is the informant of this case. He has stated that on hearing the sound of firing, he went to his shed outside the house, where he found his son in an injured condition. After the recovery of this son, he learnt that Uma Singh and Badri Singh were responsible for the occurrence. The genesis of the occurrence, according to PW 5, is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 4 / 4 4 the GAIR MAZARUA AAM land. Badri Singh had objected to the occupation of the said land by the informant and his family members. This witness admits that the co-accused Uma Singh had died before the trial had commenced. 7. The evidence of the two brothers i.e. PWs 1 and 2 and the relative of the informant PW 3 is to the effect that they learnt about the participation of Uma Singh and Badri Singh in the said occurrence after two days of the occurrence. 8. On consideration of the entire evidence, it would appear that it cannot be denied that somebody had shot at Rashtrapati Ram. In the First Information Report, it is specifically stated by the informant that he has no animosity with anyone in the village. The injury report indicates that the injuries are simple in nature and there was no reason to suppose that Rashtrapati Ram had remained unconscious for two days. The fact that the name of the appellant has been disclosed after two days of the lodging of the First Information Report, raises great doubts regarding the involvement of the appellant in the said occurrence. Accordingly, this Court acquits the appellant for

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.