Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.234 OF 2000 ======================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 22ND JUNE, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI ASHARFI SAH, 7TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GAYA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 55 OF 1999/229 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF TEKARI POLICE STATION CASE NO. 118 OF 1992 ======================================================== DEVENDRA SINGH, SON OF LATE SAWALAKH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BAJITPUR, POLICE STATION TEKARI, DISTRICT GAYA .... .... APPELLANT VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT ======================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT : MR. RAVINDRA KUMAR SINHA, ADV. FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. ======================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-09-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 22nd June, 2000 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No. 55 of 1999/229 of 1995 whereby, the appellant has been found guilty for the offences under [STATUTE] and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. 2. The prosecution case has been instituted on the basis of the statement of Ram Chander Singh on 27.07.1992. The prosecution case is that the sons of the informant were transplanting paddy in the fields when Kamta Singh and Devendra Singh came to the place of occurrence and began to argue with Anil Singh. After some time, Kamta Singh ordered and the appellant fired on Anil Singh, which hit his right leg. It Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2000 dt.04-09-2012 2 / 6 2 is said that Parshuram Singh and Munna Singh were present at the place of occurrence. Parshuram Singh inflicted a lathi blow on the hand of Devendra Singh, as a result of which, the pistol fell down which was seized by Parshuram Singh and produced in the Police Station. The accused persons are said to have run away from the place of occurrence after the said firing. 3. Unfortunately, in this case, the Investigating Officer and the doctor have not been examined to prove the place of occurrence and the medical report. Four witnesses have been examined in this case, out of which PW 1 Parshuram Singh and PW 2 Munna Singh are the witnesses named in the First Information Report, PW 3 Anil Singh is the injured, whereas PW 4 Ram Chander Singh is the informant of this case. 4. PW 1 Parshuram Singh has supported the prosecution case as made out in the First Information Report. He admits that he is the cousin of the injured. According to this witness, the injured was sent for examination to one Dr. Saroj, however, he got himself treated by another doctor. Learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is contradiction in the deposition of PW 1 when he states at paragraph 14 that he had gone to the fields to relieve himself in the evening around 5 to 5:30 PM. At paragraph 16, he states that he had heard the sound of raised voices when he was at home, which is about 2- minutes away from the place of occurrence. According to this witness, Sunil Singh and Munna were present at the place of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2000 dt.04-09-2012 3 / 6 3 occurrence. A suggestion has been given to this witness that the case has been instituted at the instance of one Banke Bihar, who is the brother-in-law (sala) of Suryadeo Singh, the brother of the informant. It has been suggested that Suryadeo Singh is a very influential man and the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station is very friendly with him. 5. PW 2 Munna Singh, who according to the First Information Report, was present at the place of occurrence, denies that he was present at the time of occurrence in his examination-in-chief. He denies that he was examined by the Investigating Officer. He also denies the seizure of the weapon produced before the Investigating Officer was made in his presence, rather he states that when he reached the Police Station, he found Banke Bihari sitting with the Investigating Officer and he was asked to sign on a plain paper. This witness has not been declared hostile despite the fact that he has not supported the prosecution version. 6. PW 3 Anil Singh is the injured. He claims that he was examined by Dr. Ganesh Singh. According to him, he was not treated by the Government doctors, rather he was treated in a private clinic. 7. PW 4 Ram Chander Singh is the informant of this case. It is submitted that he is not an eye-witness, as his presence has not been acknowledge by PWs 1, 2 and 3. However, I find that no such question has been put to PWs 1 and 2. It is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.234 of 2000 dt.04-09-2012 4 / 6 4 only PW 3 who has stated that Sunil Singh and Munna were present at the place of occurrence when it started. This witness has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence after he heard the sound of raised voices and was able to witness the occurrence. 8. The main issue in this case is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the case as made out by them in the First Information Report. The Investigating Officer who could have establish the place of occurrence, and could have given an explanation regarding the statements made before him under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has not been examined. This would be, particularly, relevant with respect to the evidence of PW 2. PW 2 denies his presence at the place of occurrence. Attention of this witness has been drawn to his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he has supposedly supported the prosecution version of the occurrence. In fact, PW 2 goes so far as to say, that he was not aware of the seizure of the pistol, which was produced by PW 1 before the Investigating Officer. The Trial Court could have taken help of sub-section

Applicable IPC Section: 324

Statute Text:
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.