IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.257 of 2005 ***** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.02.2005, passed by Ram Nandan Prasad, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Purnea in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2001/T. R. No. 365 of 2003. Prasadi Rishi, Son of Pashan Rishi, Resident of Village-Kali Asthan, Naya Tola, Police Station-K. Nagar, District-Purnea. .... .... Appellant. Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent. Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Ashwini Kumar Sinha, APP. CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is on behalf of sole appellant who has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case as stated in the fardbeyan of Jagdish Risi P.W.5 is that, he along with his brother Jhallu Risi had gone to work as labourers. After completing their work they came to Kali Asthan to distribute the wages to the other labourers who had accompanied them. While Jhallu Risi was looking into accounts, Prasadi Risi along with Haribol Risi came to Jhallu Risi demanded their share Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 2 of payment and wages. Prasadi Risi threatened him and, thereafter, gave him a Hasua blow on the neck. The cut extended from his neck to his chest. The informant tried to intervene upon which Haribol Risi caught hold of him and Prasadi Risi gave him a Hasua blow on his stomach. It is said that the occurrence was witnessed by Biltu Ram and Mahendra Pd. Yadav. The two injured persons were taken by the other labourers to the hospital. Before Jhullu Risi could reach the hospital he died. 3. In order to support the prosecution case, eight witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.7 is the formal witness who has proved (Ext.3) and (Ext.4), P.W.6 is the doctor whereas P.W.8 is the investigating officer in this case. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. 4. During the trial P.W.5 supported the case as made out in the First Information Report. He has reiterated all the facts mentioned and has also stated that he was taken to the hospital by Haribol and Mahendra Pd. Yadav. He gave his ‘Beyan’ in presence of Mahendra Pd. Yadav P.W.4 who has signed as a Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 3 witness on the First Information Report. During cross-examination the defence has not been able to elicit any material which would indicate that the manner of the occurrence as stated in the First Information Report during trial by P.W.5 is not correct. A suggestion has been made to P.W.5 that there was dispute between the labourers and someone assaulted Jhullu Risi during the said occurrence. 5. It would only amount to repetition, if this court, was to record each and every fact stated by other witnesses regarding this occurrence, as P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 have supported the case as made out in the First Information Report. They have explained that they were present at the place of occurrence and were waiting to receive their wages when the occurrence took place. As soon as there was a demand of Rangdari by Prasadi Risi, these three persons rushed to the spot and saw the manner in which Prasadi Risi assaulted Jhullu Risi. 6. The defence has tried to cross- examination the witnesses on the point that they were not present and were not eye witness to the said occurrence. P.W.1 has specifically Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 4 explained in his cross-examination that when he heard a sound of raised voices, he came running to the spot to see what was happening and thus he has witnessed the occurrence. P.W.2 has similarly said in his cross-examination that when he heard the sound of raised voices he came to the spot and saw the occurrence. He has also explained that he did not intervene in the dispute as he was scared after watching the manner in which Prasaid Risi and the informant had been assaulted by Jhullu Risi. The evidence of P.W.3 who is brother-in-law of the informant and a hearsay witness, supports the fact that he heard about the occurrence and came to help his brother-in-law who was in an injured condition. P.W.4 Mahendra Pd. Yadav has explained when just before the occurrence took place he went to look for labourers, when he reached near Kalibari he saw that a number of persons were running towards the Chowk area and he came to the Chowk area where he saw the occurrence taking place. He has proved (Ext.1). A suggestion has been made to this witness that he had not stated before the I.O. that when he came to the place of occurrence he saw both the persons (Prasadi Risi and Haribol Risi) armed Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 5 with Hasua. However, the suggestion has not been brought to the attention of the investigating officer. 7. Lastly, this Court may refer to the evidence of the doctor who has conducted post-mortem examination. The injury as mentioned in the First Information Report is supported by the doctor who has found a cut injury from the neck to the chest of Jhullu Risi (the deceased). Besides that, the informant has also received the injuries during the occurrence is supported by P.W.8 and (Ext.3). The investigating officer who is P.W.8 has been examined. However, the defence has not been able to dislodge any part of the occurrence or the evidence of the witnesses examined in court. In fact, the investigating officer supports the prosecution version of the case. 8. It appears that literally no defence has been raised on behalf of the accused in this case. An argument has been made before us that all the witnesses are interested witnesses inasmuch as P.W.2 is the brother of the deceased whereas P.W.3 is the brother-in- law of the deceased and as such their evidence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 6 should be discarded. This Court however finds that their evidence is consistent with the evidence of P.W.1 as well as the statement made by the informant in his fardbeyan. The Court has taken this aspect into consideration and come to the conclusion that there is no discrepancy worth mentioning which would lead this Court to conclude that evidence of eye witnesses is unreliable. There is no discrepancy in their evidence so that this Court may be persuaded to discard their evidence. It has also been argued that when the occurrence took place a number of persons had gathered at the spot however, none of the independent witnesses have been examined in this case. This aspect of the matter is elicited from the evidence of P.W.2 at paragraph-6. The fact that there is consistent evidence of the witnesses and the reason for being present at the place of occurrence is explained, is sufficient to reject this part of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 9. After going through the entire evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that there is unshakable evidence, which Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.257 of 2005 dt.15-09-2011 7 indicates Jhullu Risi was killed on 25.05.2000 at Kali Asthan, when the deceased Jhulu Risi was distributing wages to the labourers by the appellant. 10. In the result, this Court upholds the order of the judgment dated 16.02.2005 passed in Sessions Trial No. 442 of 2001/T.R. No. 365 of 2003. This appeal is dismissed. Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. I agree. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 15th of September, 2011 N.A.F.R. kksinha/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)