Balmiki Singh vs Ram Chander Singh & Ors

Ram Chander Singh and Ors. ...Respondents

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. These appeals have been filed by the informant

questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge

of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the respondents

1 & 2. Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the

1 offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and sentenced to

undergo RI for 5 years. Additionally, respondents were

convicted for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms

Act, 1959 (for short `Arms Act') and sentenced to undergo RI

for 3 years.

2. Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:

On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to

see his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached

near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree

armed with Garasa and country made rifle. The appellants

began to abuse him, which was protested by the informant.

Thereupon, accused Ramchandra ordered his son accused

Shravan to fire and Sravan fired upon the informant which hit

his right chest. It has been stated that prior to this

occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in

between the informant and the accused persons on use of

irrigational water. The informant after sustaining injuries sat

2 down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh Medical Hospital

where he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by the

S.I. of police. On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up.

After completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted,

cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the

court of Sessions. Finally the trial concluded with the result

as indicated above.

The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that they

had been falsely implicated in this case.

3. 8 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution

version of whom PWs. 1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eye

witnesses. But ultimately it was noted that PWs. 1 and 5 were

not eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily rested

on the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant. The Trial

Court found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly

sentenced the accused persons.

3

4. In appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution has

not been able to establish the accusations and directed

acquittal. The informant has filed these appeals questioning

acquittal.

5. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the

appellant submitted that there was no basis to discard the

evidence of PW-6 and, therefore, the High Court should not

have directed acquittal.

6. Though the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy,

we find that vital facts have been noted by the High Court.

The incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.

The first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992.

Strangely, the doctor (PW-7) stated that on the basis of

requisition received from the police, he had examined the

informant on 11.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant tried to explain that

the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.8.1992. Even if that be so,

4 it is not explained as to why the first information report was

recorded on 13.8.1992. In fact, the first information report

shows that the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs. and

the first information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130

am. The occurrence according to first information report took

place at 7.00 a.m. on 11.8.1992. Additionally, the report

reached Court on 14.8.1992. The IO was not examined who

could have explained the delay in registering the FIR and

dispatching the same to the Court and no reason was

indicated as to why he was not examined. Additionally,

evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical evidence in a

sense that according to him there was one shot. But there

were three injuries. The High Court noted that there was no

explanation for the third injury. Even doctor's evidence shows

that the two injuries cannot be treated as an entry and exit

rooms. According to PW-6 the first information report was

recorded through Jamin Khan at the medical college. If that

be so, there was no reason as to why the first information

came to be lodged after two days.

5

8. In view of the aforesaid discrepancies highlighted by the

High Court, we find no reason to interfere with the judgment

of acquittal recorded.

9. The appeals are dismissed.

...........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...........................................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

New Delhi:

September 18, 2008

6