YUGAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENT Nos. 2 and 3 were prosecuted for offence under Sections 307/34 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Kamlesh Singh was also prosecuted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE factual matrix ''the prosecution was launched on behest of Yugal Singh, the appellant, with accusation that on 30th August, 1982 while he was sipping tea at a stall, he noticed Sudarshan Singh coming with a bottle containing wine and when he made comment about constable taking liquor in broad day light and so openly, the said Sudarshan Singh reacted sharply and retired from there. It was alleged that shortly he came there, fired a shot at Yugal Singh causing injury below the waist. It was also alleged that Kamlesh Singh relieved him of his wrist watch. It was alleged that though all attempts were made by Yugal Singh to take recourse to public authority police refused to record his statement, pursuant to which he moved Chief Judicial Magistrate to set the judicial process in motion and it is how that the trial commenced against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. In the eventual trial, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses including Yugal Singh, Prof. Ram Lal Singh and hosts of other witnesses who showed themselves conversant with the allegations attributed to the respondents 2 and 3. The defence too examined two witnesses who are nonelse but the accused persons, who brought on record, the certified copy of the FIR of the counter case instituted on behest of Kamlesh Singh against appellant Yugal Singh, and the Trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on the record, while negativing assertions made by the appellant about sustaining injury on his person at the hands of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and also regard being had to the circumstances in which the appellant sustained injury, acquitted the respondents of the charges levelled against them, and hence this appeal against the order of acquittal by the appellant.

(3.) CERTAIN facts of the case are, however, not in dispute. It is not in dispute that Yugal Singh sustained fire arm injury on his person, but both the appellant and the respondents explained presence of injury on the person of Yugal Singh in different way, as while Yugal Singh and the witnesses examined on behalf of the State had been reiterating about Yugal Singh sustaining fire arm injury at the hands of Sudarshan Singh when he reacted sharply on his comment, the respondents with explicit accusation had been stating before the Court that since the appellant wanted undue favour for his brother who was appearing at the examination and in depression, removed rifle from custody of Kamlesh Singh, the appellant had to take recourse to firing, causing injury to Kamlesh Singh pursuant to which rifle was from him. Even though Madhuri Ram PW 2, Narayan Singh PW 3 and Ram Lal Singh PW 4, were not projected as eye -witnesses in the petition of complaint filed by Yugal Singh, they claimed to be ocular witnesses at trial and that apart, even though Yugal Singh was not stating about having disclosed the incident to Md. Safi PW 1, latter claimed to have received knowledge from the former. Though a large number of persons had flocked at the place of occurrence during occurrence, as was urged on behalf of the respondents only those interested in the affairs of the complainant were examined, entirely to the exclusion of independent witnesses. It is shown that as both Ramchandra Singh (PW 5) and father of appellant had donated their land for the local college, both had some sort of common interest, and as far PWs 3 and 4 it is shown that they too were associated with the college as while former was Principal, the other was Store Keeper of the college. Attention of witnesses were drawn towards their early versions which they rendered during enquiry, in which they did not allegedly claim to be ocular witnesses to the incident The Trial Court also took into consideration the belated prosecution of the respondents by the appellant and came to a conclusion that the instant case was launched as a fall out of the police case instituted against the appellant by Kamlesh Singh in which appellant suffered conviction by the Trial Court and it is brought to my notice by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appeal against the order of conviction was pending before the appellate Court.