PRAMOD KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have been convicted under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years each. Appellant No. 1, Pramod Kumar Singh has further been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts leading to the case is that on 6.7.1986 at about 7.30 p.m. informant went for refund of the advance money which he had given as advance for returning V.C.R. at M/s. Vevek Video cassettes shop near over bridge. It has been stated that he had deposited advance money on 4.7.1986 for V.C.R. and video cassettes but V.C.R. could not be given to him on account of some defect in the V.C.R. the asked for the refund money whereupon the shop-keeper along with others started altercation with him. It has been alleged that Pramod took out a country-made pistol from his pocket and fired at him causing injury on his left arm. It is stated that he identified the appellants No. 2 and 3 as well as the son of the shop owner. It has also been alleged that the incident was seen by Madan, Kamla, Jitendra and others. On the written statement of the informant, F.I.R. was lodged and after completion of the investigation police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-persons under Sections 307/324/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where trial concluded with the result as stated above.

(3.) Prosecution examined five witnesses out of which P.W. 1 and 2 were declared hostile. P.Ws. 4 and 5 were tendered witnesses Doctor and I.O. were not examined, as such the injury report was not proved. P.W. 3 is the informant. Earned Counsel for the appellants submitted all the witnesses examined by the prosecution having declared hostile and only informant has been left as solitary witness in this case. It has been submitted in this case neither Doctor nor I.O. has been examined. It has been stated that medical report, which was not proved, has been kept on record but injury mentioned in the medical report does not support the case of the prosecution. In this case, P.W. 2 is the informant who is also witness of the case has stated that occurrence took place on 7.30 on 6.7.1986. It has further been stated that he had advanced Rs. 90 for V.C.R. to the appellant Pramod who runs shop of the cassettes. Since the V.C.R. was not working, he went to shop of the appellant to get the money returned. On his demand, appellant started altercation with him. It has also been stated that Pappu came out from the shop and fired at him which hit at his left arm and the car and he was slightly injured. He went to police station and gave a written report which was proved in the Court. In the cross-examination, he has stated that the appellants fired at him and many persons of the locality came at the place of occurrence. He has further stated that nobody saw that the appellants firing on the informant. Although the evidence of P.W. 1 is consistent that the appellant Pramod fired at the informant but there is no supporting evidence on the factum of firing. Even Doctor was not exatnined and the injury report was not proved. Sine the I.O. also has not been examined, the statement and denial of hostile witness about supporting the case of the prosecution before the I.O. could not be rebutted. In view of the sole testimony of the informant without any support and in absence of medical opinion, it would not be safe to convict the appellants and they deserve benefit of doubt.