BHOLA THAKUR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Occasional clashes and quarrels to occur in the family and it was with Gandhari Thakur PW 3 also who quarreled with his wife in the preceding date of incident and family members of the appellants, suspecting their affairs being discussed, in the quarrel, came to the house of Parwati Devi at about 6.00 p.m. on 24.1.1986 and took Gita Devi PW8 to task. As usually happens, the female members began to abuse each other, there was exchange of abuses, and as usual in the female members of the rustic family, they began to pull out the hairs of their rivals. It was alleged that Parwati Devi PW 10 came out of her house and in her bid to pacify the agitating female members, suffered injury on her person when appellant Bhola Thakur, it is alleged, came out from his house with Samath (Wooden substance for husking paddy) and dealt blow on her head, causing bleeding injury on her person and that was not end of the chapter, as it was alleged, that shortly thereafter, when Somar Thakur (deceased) came to pacify them, he too suffered wrath of the appellant, as he thrashed him to the ground and gave foot blow on the back side of the neck, when Somar Thakur died instantaneously and with these narrations made by Parwati Devi PW 10, first information report was registered at Silao Police Station at 2.15 a.m. on 24th January, 1986 ad investigation commenced. During investigation, the police officer recorded statement of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, got Parwati Devi examined by doctor, prepared inquest report over the dead body of Somar Thakur, sent the dead body to mortuary for postmortem examination. visited place of occurrence and on receipt of autopsy report and on conclusion of investigation laid charge- sheet before the Court and the appellants on being committed to the Court of Sessions were eventually tried. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 13 witnesses including Parwati Devi PW 10 who was stamped witness and also other family members, which include Bachu Thakur PW 1, Gendhari Thakur PW 3, Mano Devi PW 6 and Gita Devi PW 8. Prosecution also examined Pappu Thakur PW 2 who was tendered by the prosecution and there was nothing material in his evidence to merit consideration. The State also brought on the record the evidences of Rajendra Pandey alias Rajju Pandey PW 4 and Bankey Bihari Singh alias Bankey Singh PW 5 who turned volte face, lending no assurance to the prosecution either about the deceased having suffered injury at the hands of the appellants or Parwati devi having received injury by them. The State also examined Krishna Thakur PW 7 and Rampati Chaudhary PW 9 who were witnesses of preparation of injuries report by the Police Officer. The prosecution examined Dr. Bindu Bhushan Singh PW 12 who held autopsy over the dead body of Somar Thakur. Dr. Laxmi Chaudhari PW 13 was examined to bring on the record the positive finding recorded by the doctor, pursuant to examination of Parwati Devi by him and yet there is evidence of Ram Ekbal Singh, Sub-Inspector of Police PW 11 who was Investigating Officer of the case.

(2.) The State went for trial of the appellant Bhola Thakur under Section 302, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Shanti Devi and Bhaso Devi were also tried for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code along with Bhola Thakur. However, the trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on the record finding the appellant Bhola Thakur not guilty under Sections 302 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, rendered verdict of guilt finding him guilty under Section 304. Part II and also under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and while on first count, the appellant was to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years, no sentence was awarded on second count. Though the trial Court found Bhatani Devi and Bhaso Devi guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, instead of sentencing them at once to substantive imprisonment while suspending their sentence, directed their release under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on execution of bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court with a clause that they would maintain peace and be of a good behaviour during the period of probation.

(3.) Now adverting to the evidence placed on the record one would find Parwati Devi PW 10 reiterated her early version which he rendered before the police with some minor variation about the appellant dealing blows with fist and hands on the neck of the deceased. She would state before the Court that shortly after she came out from her house, when there was a quarrel between her daughter-in-law Gita Devi PW 8, and sister and mother of appellant No. 1 when latter came out with a samath when she wanted to pacify them. She would state that thereafter he dealt blow with the said instrument on her head when she dropped to the ground. She would allege that after her husband came with the same mission to pacify the agitated female members, appellant dealt blows with fist on his nose and having thrashed him on the ground, dealt foot blows on back part of his neck. She would allege that a day preceeding the incident, Gandhari Thakur had a quarrel in his house with his wife when mother and sister of the appellant Bhola Thakur, suspecting the quarrel between husband and wife to been their affairs, came to her house and had a scuffle with Gita Devi. The narrations made by Bachu Thakur PW 1, Gandhari Thakur PW 3, Mano Devi PW 6 and Gheta Devi PW 8 were more or less in similar terms about appellant Bhola Thakur dealing blows with wooden substance on the head of Par-wati Devi when she came to pacify them. and similar was their evidences about appellant dealing blows with fist on nose of Somar Thakur and having thrashed him to the ground, dealing blows with foot on back part of the neck. Since the narrations made by the witnesses were more or less in similar terms, on material particulars of the case, I do not intend to delve upon discussing evidence of the individual witness which would be merely repetition which I have discussed. Now adverting to the finding recorded by the doctor, one comes accross the evidence of Dr. Bindu Bhushan Singh. PW 12 who stated to have conducted autopsy over the dead body of Somar Thakur. The doctor stated to have noticed one bruise 1/2" x 1/3" on nose and also one another bruise measuring 1" x 1/2" on the back of the neck of the deceased which were ante-mortem in nature. On dissection, the doctor stated to have found that bridge of the nose was not fractured and critical vertebras were intact and there was no fracture or dislocation. The cause of death in the estimation of the doctor could not be ascertained because there was no sufficient injury present on the body to cause death, though viscera was preserved.