IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.6 of 1989 ***** Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23rd day of December, 1988 passed in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1984 by Additional Sessions Judge (I), Barh. ***** 1. RAM UDIT SINGH, SON OF AYODHYA SINGH 2. JANARDAN SINGH, SON OF AYODHYA SINGH ALL RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE MOLDIAR TOLA, POLICE STATION-MOKAMAH, DISTRICT-PATNA. …..Appellants. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR …..Respondent. Appearance: For the Appellants : Mr. Bhavesh Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP. ***** CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT S.K. Sharma & R.K. Mishra, JJ. This appeal was originally filed on behalf of three appellants namely, Rajendra Singh Ram Udit Singh and Janardan Singh against the judgment dated 23.12.1988 in Sessions Trial No. 294 of 1984 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (I), Barh, Patna holding the appellant Ram Udit Singh guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo six Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 2 month’s simple imprisonment and holding Janardan Singh guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. Along with these two appellants Rajendra Singh, brother of these appellants was also one of the appellant and he was convicted under Section 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, but due to his death the appeal against him was ordered to be abated on 28.06.2011 and the appeal may now proceed only on behalf of remaining two appellants namely Ram Udit Singh and Janardan Singh. 2. Altogether 10 persons were made accused in connection with an occurrence of about 8.15 P.M. On 27.07.1983. It was alleged by the informant Manohar Pd. Singh P.W. 5 that while he was sitting along with the deceased Srikant Singh and some others including Balmiki Singh P.W. 3, Kapildeo Singh P.W. 2, Brijnandan Singh P.W. 1, Ram Charitar Singh P.W. 6 and Swaraj Singh P.W. 4 in Bathan in front of his house at Village Moldiar Tola, Mokama. The informant has purchased the Bathan land from one Ram Lakhan Pathak. The house of appellant no.1 Rajendra Singh was contiguous to the south of the aforesaid Bathan. The pleader commissioner has come to inspect the disputed land Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 3 and after his departure all the accused persons came out from the house of Rajendra Singh. They were having traditional weapons like Lathi, Bhala, Dagger, Brickbats and some of them were also having firearms. They intrude in the informant’s Bathan and started throwing chairs and tables hither and thither. Accused Rajendra Singh, Ram Udit Singh and Ramji Singh were having Lathi. Chandrashekhar Singh and Chandramauli Singh were armed with revolver and pistol respectively, whereas Janardan Singh was carrying Bhala. Ramji Singh snatched wrist watch, Janardan Singh snatched gold chain of informant Manohar Pd. Singh P.W.5 Rajendra Singh inflicted Lathi blow upon Brijnandan Singh P.W. 1, Rajjan Singh P.W. 7 and Srikant Singh (the deceased). Further allegation is that Janardan Singh hurled Bhala blow causing grievous injury to the deceased whereas some other accused also hit the deceased by means of Lathi which hit his leg and back. Others were throwing brickbats which caused injury to Brijnandan Singh P.W. 1, Rajjan Singh P.W. 7 and Srikant Singh (the deceased). Srikant Singh has lost his sense and he had to be carried for treatment. Shyamnandan Singh caused injury to the informant’s brother Subhash Singh by brickbats and hence he was also sent for Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 4 treatment. The fardbeyan (Ext.1) of Manohar Pd. Singh P.W. 5 resulted into formal First Information Report (Ext.8). The injured were sent for treatment and injury reports were received. In course of investigation, one of the injured Srikant Singh succumbed to the injuries on 07.08.1983, so Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added. After receiving all the injury reports as well as post-mortem examination report and after investigation of place of occurrence and recording statements of the witnesses the case was found to be true. Charge sheet was submitted and cognizance was taken. The case was committed to the court of Sessions where charges were explained to the accused persons and when they pleaded innocence, the trial proceeded. 3. In support of the prosecution, the prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses. They are Brijnandan Singh P.W. 1, Kapildeo Singh P.W. 2, Balmiki Singh P.W. 3, Suraj Singh P.W. 4, Manohar Pd. Singh P.W. 5, Ram Charitar Singh P.W. 6, Rajjan Singh P.W. 7, Prem Kumar P.W. 8, Dr. A.B. Tiwary P.W. 9, Dr. Ram Krishna Pd. Singh P.W. 10, Dr. B.K. Setty P.W. 11, Ajay Kr. Singh, the investigating officer P.W. 12, Ram Ratan Pd. Singh P.W. 13 and Jagdish Pd. P.W. 14. The defence has Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 5 also examined Deo Nandan Pd. Singh D.W. 1, Shatrughan Prasad D.W. 2, Raj Kr. Pd. D.W. 3 and Jagdish Pd. D.W. 4. The material witnesses of the prosecution are P.Ws. 1 to 7 and they have supported the prosecution case regarding manner and role attributed to the accused persons. The post-mortem examination of Srikant Singh was conducted by Dr. Ram Krishna Pd. Singh, P.W. 10 and the post-mortem examination report (Ext.6) has been brought on record on behalf of the prosecution. The injured were treated by Dr. A.B. Tiwary P.W. 9 and Dr. B.K. Setty P.W. 11 and the injury reports have come on the record vide Ext. 5 to Ext. 5/3. Before death, the investigating officer has taken the statement of Srikant Singh that has been recorded in para-38 of the case diary and has been exhibited vide Ext. 9. 4. The defence is that these accused persons have been implicated on account of enmity which was coming from before. The manner of occurrence has also been doubted and it has been submitted that the prosecution party were aggressors because prior to the present case, a case vide Mokama P.S. Case No. 156 of 1983 was instituted and in that case the prosecution party were made accused and ones they become accused, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 6 they have lodged the false case. 5. After the accused persons appeared, charge under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code were framed against 10 accused persons namely, Rajendra Singh, Ram Udit Singh, Anil Kumar Singh, Shyam Nandan Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Arvind Singh, Chandra Mauli Singh, Janardan Singh, Pramod Singh and Ramjee Singh. Charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act was framed against Chandra Shekhar Singh and Chandra Mauli Singh. Charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Rajendra Singh for causing injury to Brijnandan Singh, Rajjan Singh and Srikant Singh by means of Lathi whereas Charge under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Ram Udit Singh for causing injury to the informant by Lathi. Janardan Singh and Ramjee Singh were charged under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code also. After considering the evidence on behalf of both sides, both documentary as well as oral, and after hearing the submissions and perusal of the papers produced by both the sides, the court came to the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to prove charge against Shyam Nandan Singh, Pramod Singh, Chandra Mauli Singh, Chandra Shekhar Singh, Ramjee Singh, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 7 Anil Singh and Arvind Singh and they have been acquitted of the charges but these two appellants and another appellant namely, Rajendra Singh (now dead) were held guilty as stated above. 6. Before adverting the oral evidence, it would be apt to produce the medical evidence which has come on record by P.W.9 to P.W.11. The post- mortem examination of the deceased Srikant Singh was conducted by P.W.10 on 07.08.1983 and has found following injuries: (I). Stitched wound of 3” length on the vertex. (II). Extra dual and sub-dural hematoma on the front-parietal region of the brain, the brain was congested. (III). Stitched wound of 3½” length on the anterior aspect of the left forearm. (IV). Stitched wound 2½” length on the left palm placed horizontally. (V). Bruise in an area of 4” diameter on the right lower region of the abdomen. The death was within 48 hours prior to the examination and it was caused by head injury. As the person who has been found guilty Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 8 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not before us so, cause of death is not being discussed. His evidence is being produced and to be relevant when the evidence of others are considered. 7. P.W.9 has examined P.W.7 Rajjan Singh, P.W.5 Manohar Pd. Singh and P.W.1 Brijnandan Singh. The relevancy here is only of Manohar Pd. Singh P.W.5, so his evidence is only being discussed here because no persons who is associated with causing injury to Rajjan Singh P.W.7 and P.W.1 Brijnandan Singh are here. The doctor P.W.9 has examined P.W.5 Manohar Pd. Singh and has found following injuries:- (I). Abrasion 3”x½” on the lower one third of the front of right leg. (II). Complaint of pain on the loin, but no apparent injury or tenderness was found. Both the injuries were simple and caused within six hours. In cross-examination the doctor has stated that none of the injury of P.W.5 Manohar Pd. Singh was on vital part. Regarding weapon which could be responsible for causing injury P.W.5 Manohar Pd. Singh, it has been stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 9 by the doctor that the injury caused by some hard and blunt weapon like Lathi. 8. P.W.11 is another doctor who has initially treated Srikant Singh and his injury report shows that he was admitted in the hospital at Mokama at 10.30 P.M. on 27.07.1983 and has found following injuries:- (I). One lacerated wound – 4”x ½” x bone deep on the right front-parietal area and also with blood and cerebro spinal fluid discharging from right nose. (II).Superficial laceration on the right side of the scalp – 1” x ½”. (III). Cut injury 2” x ½” x muscle deep on the left palm. (IV). Small two superficial laceration on the left chin and cheek. Injuries which can be attributed to the appellant Janardan Singh can at best Injury No. (III) about which opinion of the doctor in para-3 of his evidence stated that it was simple and to be caused by some sharp weapon such as edge of Bhala. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 10 9. In the background of the aforesaid medical discussions of the evidence of the informant is being firstly discussed. P.W.5 the informant was sitting at his Bathan on 27.07.1983 at 8.15 P.M. along with Subhash Pd. Singh, P.W.1 Brijnandan Singh, P.W. 7 Rajjan Singh, Srikant Singh (the deceased), P.W. 2 Kapildeo Singh, P.W. 3 Balmiki Singh, P.W. 6 Ram Charitar Singh and P.W. 4 Swaraj Singh. Among them one of the witness namely Subhash Pd. Singh has already died. When they were sitting suddenly Rajendra Singh, Ram Udit Singh, Ramjee Singh having Lathi, Janardan Singh, Anil Singh and Pramod singh having Bhala, Arvind Singh having Dagger, Chandra Shekhar Singh having Revolver and Chandra Mauli Singh having Pistol and Shyam Nandan Singh having bricks came and started throwing chairs and tables hither and thither which were kept at Bathan. Rajendra Singh assaulted Brijnandan Singh by Lathi. Rajjan Singh was assaulted by Lathi by Rajendra Singh. Srikant Singh was assaulted by Rajendra Singh, Ram Udit Singh and Ramjee Singh by Lathi. Janardan Singh has assaulted Srikant Singh by Bhala, he became unconscious. The informant was also assaulted by Lathi by Ram Udit Singh. Shyam Nandan Singh has assaulted Subhash Pd. Singh by brickbats and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 11 Chandra Shekhar Singh and Chandra Mauli Singh were firing. Ramjee Singh has snatched the wrist watch of the informant and Janardan Singh has snatched the gold chain. The mob after hearing came and started reiterating then the accused persons had gone. The matter was informed to the police which came and recorded the statement of the informant. The informant, thereafter, ran to the Mokama Hospital. The occurrence was in sequel to a piece of land purchased by the informant from Ram Lakhan Pathak. After purchasing the land, the informant came into possession over the land and started utilizing. The land in question was Plot No. 5829 and 5830 both were contiguous and have combined area of 31 decimals. The land was dragged into controversy which led to altercation and proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was contested between the parties. The pleader commissioner had come at the place of occurrence at about 6 P.M. and when he returned then the accused persons became aggressors and so the happening occurred. 10. Similar is the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the major portion of the occurrence Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 12 has been disbelieved by the court so the appellant also should have been granted benefit of doubt because once pillars and bounds of the case is false then the entire evidence become doubtful and in that view of the matter it was incumbent upon the court that the accused should have been acquitted. It has also been submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of material witnesses and so this should not have been realized. Further submission is that the case lodged by the defence was earlier and it has been considered that the present case in which the accused have been made accused is nothing but counter blast and that Srikant Singh has died on account of his nephrological problem then the matter has been set up by taking into collusion the investigating officer. 12. P.W.1 in para-1 has stated that when Srikant Singh wanted to save the attack of Bhala and in that effort he caught Bhala by his left hand but that caused injury and so he becomes unconscious. Janardan Singh has assaulted by means of Bhala. P.W.1 in para-9 has described the manner of assault and the assault attributed to Ram Udit Singh is that he has assaulted the informant P.W.5 by means of Lathi. He has also assaulted Srikant Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 13 Singh by means of Lathi. Janardan Singh has also assaulted Srikant Singh by Bhala. After 10-11 days of the assault Srikant Singh died in the hospital. P.W.1 in para-1 and 2 has described the manner of assault and role attributed to these appellants. According to him, Janardan Singh gave a Bhala blow to Srikant Singh but he warded it off and in that process he got his palm injured. Ram Udit Singh assaulted Srikant Singh by means of Lathi. P.W.3 in para-1 has stated that the accused persons were carried weapons and Ram Udit Singh was having Lathi whereas Janardan Singh was having Bhala. Ram Udit Singh assaulted Srikant Singh by Lathi and he has further stated that Janardan Singh has also assaulted Srikant Singh by Bhala. Ram Udit Singh has also assaulted the informant P.W.5 by Lathi. P.W.4 in para-1 has attributed the similar role to the appellants and he has stated that Ram Udit Singh has given a Lathi blow to Manohar Pd. Singh whereas Srikant Singh was also given Lathi blow. About Janardan Singh it has been stated that he has given Bhala blow to Srikant Singh. P.W.6 in para-1 has stated that Janardan Singh gave a Bhala blow to Srikant Singh but Srikant Singh tried to caught it and on account of that Srikant Singh received injury in his hand. P.W.7 has stated Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 14 about the weapons which accused persons were carried at the time of occurrence, he later on became unconscious due to impact of the assault so he has not seen the other parts of the occurrence. If these ocular witnesses are read with the injury reports and the post-mortem examination reports of the doctors P.W.9 to P.W.11, it is apparent that there were corresponding injuries. If the consistent eye witnesses’ gets corroboration from the medical evidence and no major contradictions appear then it becomes very difficult to disbelieve their testimony. Regarding motive no doubt has been alleged and the fact is that one person has been killed and others have been injured. No other probability has come on the record from which any other inferences can be drawn that the injury or death might have been caused in different manner. The place of occurrence already stands established in view of different version also with regard to occurrence of the same date. Before death Srikant Singh has given statement (Ext.9) before the investigating officer and therein also he has explained the manner in which the occurrence has taken place and he has described the role of the accused persons. The statement of the deceased prior to death Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 15 regarding nature of injury and role attributed to the different accused persons have been corroborated by at least six witnesses. Therefore, there are consistent oral evidence supported by the medical evidence from which it can be held that the prosecution has been able to prove the death, date and time of occurrence and the manner in which the accused persons caused assault to the prosecution parties. 13. Regarding submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the implication is on account of enmity, it can be said that enmity has no single end. When both ends can be proved then the evidence has to be scrutinized and the evidence is consistent here. So, we are of the view that the defence of the accused persons is of no help to them. Considering this, the conviction of Appellant No.1 namely, Ram Udit Singh is under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of Appellant No.2 namely, Janardan Singh is under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained. 14. So far as the sentence of the appellants is concerned it is made clear that the appellants have remained in custody for different periods during trial and as the case was not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.6 of 1989 dt.27-07-2011 16 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code initially, they were granted bail. Subsequently after death Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added and the appellants were granted bail by the Sessions Court and in that process the appellants remained in custody for sometime. Considering the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that ends of justice will be met if the sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. Accordingly, sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone by them. 15. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with above modification in sentence. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 27th of July, 2011 N.A.F.R. kksinha/- (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.) (Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)