DINESH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the judgment passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Trial No. 312/91, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted opposite party Nos. 2 to 6 of this revision.

(2.) THE revisionists lawyer submitted that the learned Sessions Judge adopted a wrong approach to the whole case and his finding that there was inordinate delay in lodging the case was wrong. Learned trial Court also failed to appreciate the evidence of PWs properly. Interestedness of particular witnesses may not be a ground for disbelieving their testimony. Contradiction in the evidence of PWs was not just as to touch the case on its material particulars. On these grounds, it was submitted that the judgment of acquittal dated 28.7.99 passed by the Sessions Judge may be set aside.

(3.) ON perusal of the judgment of the trial Court, it transpires that out of the witnesses examined PW 9 was the doctor. PW 10 was another doctor who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, who was father of the informant. PW 4 Chandrasekhar Singh. PW 6 Hare Kisun Singh and PW 8. Sitaram Singh were all the sons of the deceased, who were the only eye witnesses of the alleged occurrence. Other so -called eye witnesses were declared hostile. Learned trial Court said that evidence of these PWs was discrepant inter se. Moreover, the trial Court stated that one of the eye witnesses said that the deceased was dragged and assaulted with denta etc., but the doctor did not find external or internal injury. So far the testimony of the witnesses it was in conflict with the medical evidence. The trial Court further stated that as per the statement of the PWs, deceased was treated for 3 -4 hours in the hospital, but the doctor said that he died within ten minutes of his arrival to the hospital. The doctor further said that the deceased died of cardiac failure and the patient was gasping a condition which might occur on account of charonic cough by use of ganja, cigarette etc. Dinesh Singh was the informant of this case who was also son of the deceased. PW 11 was the I.O. who prepared the inquest report, but he did not find any external injury upon the person of the deceased. The alleged occurrence took place on 26.12.90 over a dispute for irrigation of fields of the informant and the accused. The dispute arose between the informant and the accused over irrigation of fields on 25.12.90. On 26.12.90 accused persons were carrying water from the canal through the field of the informant. Informant protested. Thereafter the accused persons appeared at the house of the informant and on the pretext of Panchayati, he brought the informant out of his house. He was fisted and when the informants father came to his rescue, he was also assaulted. When the informant wanted to go to the Police Station, one Shiv Nandan Singh promised to hold panchayati and settle the matter, but in the meantime, the condition of the deceased deteriorated and, therefore, he was brought to the hospital where he died. Dinesh Singh gave his fardbeyan on 26.12.90 at the State Dispensary. However, the occurrence had taken place in the morning of 26.12.90 and the Police Station is at a distance of 1 -1/2 kms. only. The fardbeyan of Dinesh Singh (Ext. 7) shows that the condition of the deceased had deteriorated at 2 p.m. and so he was brought to the State Dispensary for treatment where he succumbed to his injury after some time. Shiv Nandan Singh was examined as PW 5 and he was declared hostile. So. he did not support the case of the prosecution that he had promised to hold panchayati and, therefore, the informants family were delayed in bringing the deceased to the hospital. It was the plea of the informant that he wanted to get his father treated locally and so there was delay. If the condition of the deceased was serious on account of the assault, the probabilities were that he should have been brought to the hospital immediately for his treatment instead of waiting till 2 p.m. So, circumstances of this case would indicate that there was no serious injury at all upon the person of the deceased on account of the alleged assault which could result into his death. The trial Court has taken notice of this fact and he has stated that medical evidence did not support the case of the prosecution that the deceased died of assault given by the accused of this case. P.S. 1. was admittedly one and half kilometres from the place of occurrence and so, the informant and his family were supposed to go to the Police Station or to the State Dispensary immediately after the occurrence. Delayed information to the police or delayed despatch of the deceased to the hospital was, therefore, of course, not explained by the circumstances of this case. Of course, there was not inordinate delay, but the delay in the circumstances remained unexplained. In such circumstances, the interestedness of PWs became significant aspect of the case and if the trial Court disbelieved their evidence, I do not think that there is any illegality committed by the trial Court.