IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA G. APP. (DB) No.24 of 2010 THE STATE OF BIHAR …………………… APPELLANT. Versus 1. RAMJEE SINGH, SON OF RAM TAPASYA SINGH 2. NANDJEE SINGH, SON OF RAM TAPASYA SINGH 3. LEDRU SINGH @ RAM ISHWAR SINGH, SON OF LATE SHIVPUJAN SINGH 4. BHIM SINGH, SON OF BHIKHAM SINGH 5. BHIKHAM SINGH, SON OF RAGHUBIR SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE – MASURI, POLICE STATION – JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT – BHOJPUR. ….. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 06/ 06.09.2010 The State of Bihar has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 23.01.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge I, Bhojpur, Ara in Sessions Trial No. 276 of 2001, whereby the trial court has acquitted respondents 3, 4 and 5 of the charges under Sections 302, 148 & 302/149 of the IPC. Respondents 1 & 2 were acquitted of charges under Section 302/149 of the IPC. However, the trial court convicted respondents 1, 3, 4 and 5 for offence under Section 323 read with section 34 of the IPC and sentenced R.I. for one month. Respondent No. 2 was not convicted for offence under any of the sections and discharged from the liability of his bail bond. Jagdishpur P.S. Case No. 288 of 2000 was instituted on the basis of fard-beyan of informant Ramdas Singh, recorded on 25.12.2000 at Govt. Hospital, Jagdishpur for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504 & 307 of 2 the IPC as well as Section 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently Section 302 read with section 149 IPC was added after the death of injured Hare Krishna Singh. The case of the prosecution in the FIR is that on 25.12.2000 at 7.00 a.m. Gita Devi wife of Hare Krishna Singh (deceased) and daughter-in-law of informant Ramdas Singh had gone to throw garbage of their house in the field situated in front of the house of the informant. Nandji Singh (respondent no. 2) and Ramjee Singh (respondent no. 1) started abusing, which was protested by Hare Krishna Singh. Bir Bahadur Singh, Ledru Singh @ Ram Ishwar singh, Bhim Singh and Bhola Singh thereafter came variously armed with gun and lathi at the place of occurrence. There was hot exchange of words in between Nandji Singh, Ramjee Singh and Hare Krishna Singh. On the order of Bhola Singh, Ramjee Singh fired shot from his pistol upon Hare Krishna Singh, he sustained fire arm injury and fell down. Nandjee Singh also opened fire when Urmila Devi another daughter- in-law of the informant Ramdas Singh and his grand son went for rescue Hare Krishna Singh, Bir Bahadur Singh, Nandji Singh, Ledru Singh @ Ram Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh along with Sanyogi Devi and mother of Bhim Singh 3 assaulted them with lathi and brick bats. Informant was also assaulted by accused Bhim Singh and his mother when he went to rescue Hare Krishna Singh. After committing the offence the accused persons fled away towards village. Hare Krishna Singh died in course of treatment at Sadar Hospital, Ara. Other injured were treated at Jagdishpur hospital. The Investigating Officer on completion of investigation submitted charge sheet against 7 accused, but Sanyogi Devi and mother of Bhim Singh were not charge sheeted as no evidence was found against them. During trial charges were framed against Ramji Singh and Nandjee Singh for offence under Sections 302, 148 and 302/149 of the IPC and against others namely, Ledru Singh @ Ram Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh and Bhikham Singh charges were framed for offence under sections 147, 148 & 302/149 of the IPC. Altogether 11 witnesses were examined. PW 1 Dhanji Singh, PW 2 Pawan Kumar Singh, P.W. 3 Ramdas Singh (informant), PW 4 Dr. Binod Kumar, who is the doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body, PW 5 Raj Kumar Chaudhary, PW 6 Jai Nath Singh, PW 7 Bhola Singh, PW 8 Urmila Devi, PW 9 Gita Devi, PW 10 Ram 4 Dutt Pandey, I.O. of the case and PW 11 Dr. Sakaldeo Ram, the doctor, who had examined the informant. PW 1 was 6 to 7 years of age and PW 2 of 12-13 years when examined as witness in the court. PWs 1, 2, 3, 8 and 9 were examined as the eye witness of the occurrence. PW 5 is a formal witness and PW 7 is the witness of inquest report. PW 6 has supported the prosecution case even though not examined as eye witness. On perusal of the judgment, which is under challenge, we find that the statement of the witnesses have fully been discussed by the trial court. In Second paragraph at page 13 of the judgment, the trial court has given his reasoning in passing a judgment of acquittal of particular accused persons of the charges framed against them, which reads as follows:- “Thus from the statement of aforesaid all the witnesses namely P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 8 and P.W. 9 it is obvious that three different story in regard to occurrence has emerged. The first story enumerated in fard beyan of Ram Das Singh (Ext. 7) is that when Geeta Devi had gone to throw domestic waste then 5 accused Nandji Singh and Ramji Singh started abusing her. Thereafter Hare Krishna Singh said that he had also purchased the land and so the domestic waste would be thrown in the field. On hearing hue and cry accused Vir Bahadur Singh, Ledru @ Ram Ishwar Singh, Bhim Singh, Bhikham Singh armed with lathi and gun appeared there and after arrival accused Bhola Singh exhorted to open assault. Following it accused Ramji Singh whipping out pistol from his waist, fired shot at his son Hare Krishna Singh who fell down on being hit by shot. At that time accused Nandji Singh had also fired a shot. Thereafter Urmila Devi and Pawan Kr. went forward to save Hare Krishna Singh then accused Vir Bahadur Singh, Ledru Singh and Bhim Singh did assault to them with lathi. While Sanjogi Devi and mother of Bhim Singh gave brick bats to them. Thereafter when Ram Das Singh went forward to save Hare Krishna Singh then he was assaulted with lathi by Bhim Singh and 6 his mother. But when the said Ram Das Singh (informant) has deposed in court as P.W. 3 then he has given different story of the occurrence and has stated that when accused Nandji Singh and Ramji Singh started abusing Geeta Devi. Hare Krishna Singh forbade them not to abuse. Thereafter accused Bhim Singh, Vir Bahadur Singh, Bhikham Singh and Ledru started assault with gun. On sustaining fire arm injury his son Hare Krishna Singh fell down even then he was assaulted by accused persons. His grand son Pawan Kumar besides Jainath Singh and this witness Ram Das Singh was also assaulted by accused persons. And the remaining aforesaid witnesses namely P.W. 1 Dhanji Singh, P.W. 2 Pawan Kumar, P.W. 6 Jainath Singh, P.W. Urmila Devi and P.W. 9 Geeta Devi have given evidence to the effect that accused Vir Bahadur Singh had also joined accused Nandji Singh and Ramji Singh in abusing Geeta Devi at the time of throwing of domestic waste in the field. 7 Thereupon Hare Krishna Singh forbade them not to abuse then accused Bhim Singh, Bhola Singh, Bhikham Singh, Ram Ishwar Singh appeared there. Accused Bhola Singh exhorted then accused Nandji Singh fired shot at left chest of Hare Krishna Singh from point blank range.” The trial court found that in course of trial prosecution witnesses have come out with different story. The story which was disclosed in the fard beyan was completely given a go bye in the evidence of some of the witnesses. So far other witnesses are concerned, them came out with totally a different story in their deposition before the trial court. Three stories were brought before the trial court. In each story the assailant of the deceased was different, manner of occurrence was different and there was no consistency in the evidence of the witnesses. The pattern of evidence indicates that the prosecution is unable to fix the liability of killing the deceased at any of the accused. Considering these anomalies the learned trial Judge has recorded the finding acquitting the accused-respondents 8 from the charges framed against them. However, they have been convicted under Section 323/34 of the IPC, but it will not be attached before us considering that the appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal, otherwise this was also a matter sufficient for interference by this Court in the ends of justice. As informed by the counsel for the State, all the accused persons have undergone the period of their sentence, on account of their conviction under Section 323/34 of the IPC. However, Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, Senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that one of the respondents is still undergoing sentence, which is going to be completed soon. This appeal is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)