SACHIDANAND SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH process of reconciliation, for resolving disputes do yield salutary results but sometimes results are reverse and even those involved in recon -ciliation incur wrath of the parties and sustain injuries on their persons, as it is alleged that preceding the day of incident i.e. 6th November, 1985, while Nand Kishore Singh was going to his house in the company of Saral Singh, he was abused by Umesh Sah for restraining Prabhunath Singh in working with him. It was alleged that when Nand Kishore Singh retorted, he was threatened to be taught a lesson. The villagers assembled and pacified both of them and the matter ended there. No one expected that the chapter will be reopened again on the following day, as it is alleged that on the 7th of November, 1985 at about 7.30 a.m./ 8 a.m., when a panchayati was ' to be convened for resolution of said dispute, Mishri Prasad, who was one of the parties to attend the panchayati, did not attend and it is alleged that when Ramnath Rai was deputed to call said Mishri Prasad, instead of expressing his intention to participate in the panchayati, he took Ramnath Singh to task, pursuant to which it is alleged that the panches including Harihar Singh, the Informant and other witnesses visited bathan of Mishri where on exhortation made by him, Umesh Sah dealt blows with dagger on Nand Kishore Singh and when Harihar Singh, father of Nand Kishore Singh came for rescue of his son, Mishri Prasad dealt blows with spear on his back which was followed by successive blows with dagger, inflicted by Umesh Sah. It was alleged that when Ramadhar Singh (deceased) came for rescue, on exhortation made by Sakaldhari Raut, he along with Prabhu Nath Singh and Bhupendra Singh, chased him and when he made abortive bid to escape, Bhupendra Sah and Sakaldhari Raut caught hold of him near bathan of Jagan Bhagat, pursuant to which, Prabhu Nath Singh gave a dagger blow on his back for which he eventually succumbed to the injuries. There was turmoil and every one began to flee here and there and it is further alleged that while fleeing, Santosh Sah dealt blows with farsa on Ramjit Thakur causing, injuries on his head. It was also alleged that Ram Kant Thakur sustained injuries at the hands of Umesh Sah who dealt blows with dagger on him causing injuries in his abdomen and also on back and scalp. Harendra Choudhary too was not spared, as it is alleged that Santosh Singh dealt blows with farsa on him also. Nand Kishore Singh, who had suffered injuries on his person was again given blows by Gauri Shankar Singh and Sachidanand Singh by dagger and Sakaldeo Raut too dealt blows with spear on his back, waist, right arm and chest. The injured were carried to Hathwa Hospital on a tyre cart where they were treated of their injuries by the doctor who attended them. Fardbeyan of Harihar Singh was recorded at 12.00 hrs on 7.11.1985 at Hathwa Hospital by Sri Sagar Oas, a Police Officer of Uchakagaon Police Station and after the prosecution was launched with these accusations on behest of Harihar Singh, investigation commenced in course of which the Police Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court.

(2.) IN the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether ten witnesses including four injured persons, who are P. Ws. 1, 2, 4 and 5. Though Harihar Choudhary too suffered injuries on his person, he was not examined at trial. The State examined Dr. Jagannath Sah (P.W. 9) who eventually carried out autopsy over the dead body of Ramadhar Singh and also examined some of the accused persons who allegedly suffered injuries on their persons and they happened to be Mishri Prasad and Umesh Prasad Sah. Dr. Ugra Pratap Narain Singh (P.W. 10) was another doctor who examined Nand Kishore Singh (PW. 1), Harihar Singh (P.W. 4), Ramaji Thakur (P.W. 2), Ramakant Thakur (P.W. 5) and also Harendra Choudhary. Dr. Ugra Pratap Narain Singh stated to have examined also Sakaldeo Thakur, father of Mishri Prasad. Shri Sagar Das, who happened to be Investigating Officer of the case was examined as P.W. 8. Some witnesses examined by the State were, however, tendered and there was nothing material in their evidences to merit consideration.

(3.) TO begin with the genesis of the alleged incident, the prosecution had a case that on 6.11.1985, while Nand Kishore Singh (P.W. 1) was returning to his home with Saral Singh, Appellants Bhupendra Sah and Umesh Sah took him to task for restraining Prabhunath Singh in working with them and after Nand Kishore Singh retorted, unfounded allegations were attributed to him by Umesh Prasad Sah and Santosh Sah threatening him to teach a good lesson. However, the matter was not pursued further due to investigation of the villagers. The chapter was, however, not closed, as it is alleged that at about 7.30/ 8 a.m. on the following day, when a Panchayati was to be convened for resolution of the dispute, on behalf of the Harihar Singh (P.W. 4), Mishri Prasad, who was one of the participants, blatantly refused to attend the Panchayati, pursuant to which Harihar Singh along with punches witnesses and also Nand Kishore Singh, went to Bathan of Mishri Prasad questioned his discretion for not attending the Panchayati. It was Mishri Prasad, who set the ball in motion exhorting his men to make assault on them. True it is that Nand Kishore Singh was the solitary witness about the incident that happened on the day preceding the incident, the factum of Mishri Prasad refusing to participate in the Panchayati was very much explicit even in the statement of Bhupendra Sah, which he rendered before the Court under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). There has been evidence of Nand Kishore Singh and Harihar Singh, P. Ws. 1 and 4, respectively, about a Panchayati to be held at the door of Raja Ram Singh and deputation of Ram Nath Rai (P.W. 6) to call Mishri Prasad in the said Panchayati. About the punches who were mentioned to participate in the Panchayati, Harihar Singh (P.W. 4) would name Bhalai Raut (P.W. 3), Sudama Rawat (P.W. 7) and others. It is not in dispute that of all those persons, who were nominated punches, while Sudama Raut was examined at trial Bhalai Raut (P.W. 3) was tendered by the State. That apart, the factum of holding Panchayati is also writ large in the counter version of the Appellants appearing in the First Information Report registered on behest of Mishri Prasad in Uchakagaon P.S. Case No. 136 of 1985, which was Exhibit D on the record and that probabilises the prosecution version on the factum of holding of Panchayati which was the genesis of the incident.