RAM LAL SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant suffered conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on being tried by Shri Jai Kishore Narayan, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 51 of 1991 and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix. ''It was alleged that at about 3 p.m. on 18th March, 1990, while Shri Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 4) was getting his paddy thrashed in a mill of Sukhdeo Sah, he was informed by one Shobha Singh about appellant having dealt several blows with dab (a sharp edged instrument) on his brother Uma Shankar Singh, who dropped unconscious. He rushed to the place of occurrence and noticed his brother with multiple injuries on his person. A good number of persons came and they too narrated the incident to him about the appellant having dealt blows with sharp edged weapon on Uma Shankar Singh, and with these accusations, fardbeyan of Sunil Kumar Singh was recorded in Emergency outdoor of Sadar hospital, Chapra at 10.30 p.m. on the same day, pursuant to which investigation commenced. In course of investigation, the Police officer recorded statement of witnesses, inspected the place of occurrence, secured injury report of Uma Shankar Singh and on his eventual death in the Patna Medical College Hospital, Patna, where he was carried from Sadar Hospital, Chapra, got autopsy held by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court to put the appellant on trial. In the trial that commenced against the appellant, the State examined altogether 12 witnesses and they include Sunil Kumar Singh (P.W. 4), Krishna Nandan Singh (P.W. 1), Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) and Lalit Mohan Singh (P.W. 6) who claimed to be ocular witnesses of the incident. The State also examined host of other witnesses and also the doctor who clinically examined the injured before he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him.

(3.) /1/2013 Page 95 Shyam Deo Paswan Versus State Of Bihar 4. Volume of arguments were canvassed at Bar on behalf of the appellant, ostensibly to criticise the findings recorded by the Court below and it is sought to be urged that taking the prosecution case to be true on its face value, since no motive had been assigned by the State which persuaded the appellant to commit the alleged overt act, the bona fide of the entire prosecution was open to serious question. The contentions are raised that though Shobha Singh was shown to be the person who rendered first hand information to Sunil Kumar Singh about the overtact attributed to the appellant, non -examination of said Shobha Singh had introduced a serious infirmity in the prosecution case and the learned counsel reiterating his submission would urge that if the narration made by Sheoji Singh (P.W. 3) about other witnesses having arrived at the place of occurrence in the company of Sunil Kumar Singh was to be given any credence, that would exclude the possibility of other witnesses to be ocular. Some alleged inconsistencies in the narrations made by P.Ws. 1 and 3 about possibility of the latter witness to be ocular witness, were also highlighted at Bar to treat the witnesses incredible and, yet, it is urged that since the Investigating Officer was not examined at trial, appellant on that score was seriously prejudiced. The next limb of the argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant was that taking the prosecution version to be true in its entirety, as some persons were chasing the appellant, he acted in exercise of private defence and in that view of the matter also, the action attributed to the appellant would come for his rescue and the last argument was that taking the circumstances of the case into consideration about chase, the appellant cannot be credited with intention to cause death of Uma Shankar Singh and hence his case would not fall within the mischief under section 302. IPC. Learned counsel for the State would draw our attention to the testimony of P.Ws. 1, 3, and 6 and it is urged that the witnesses were most coherent in their narrations for which there was positive finding of the doctor who noticed corresponding injuries on the person of the injured.