RAMADHAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH accusation attributed to the sole appellant was quite serious and shocking the consciousness, culpability of the appellant has to be judged on the anvil as to whether the guilt attributed to the appellant has been established beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts.

(2.) THE facts of the case are tell - e - tell. At about 1.30 p.m. on 14th June, 1988, it is alleged that while Ram Bali Pandey (P.W.4) was chatting with his wife and also brother -in -law in the pallani, where his son Gautam Pandey was on the cot, on account of his ailment, his wife gave sweets to Gajendra Pandey, her minor son aged about eight years and asked him to go to house and take bread from his bhabhi for eating. The further case of the prosecution is that hardly Gajendra Pandey had proceeded for some distance, that the appellant came from his nearby pallani and dealt two successive blows with spade on his head. The family members of Gajendra Pandey immediately rushed to the place of occurrence. The appellant was relieved of the spade by Ram Bali Pandey, who had been overpowered by him and was tied with a log. As wounds on the person of Gajendra Pandey had been oozing profusely, he was carried to Dhanauti from where he was referred to Mairwa Hospital where he was declared dead. The Police came in motion after statement of Ram Bali Pandey was recorded by the Police. The investigation followed and in the process of investigation, the Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses, visited the place of occurrence, seized blood stained spade and also earth, prepared inquest report, got autopsy held over the dead body of the deceased and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial, that commenced, the State examined altogether eight witnesses, who are father, mother of the deceased and also other witnesses, who stated to be conversant with the material facts of the case. The State also examined a formal witness, namely, Khursid Ansari (P.W. 8), who brought on the record the first information report, seizure memo, inquest report and also the post mortem report, which are Exhibits of the prosecution case. The defence too examined three witnesses and brought on the record some documents obviously to demonstrate that the appellant, preceding the incident had been suffering from insanity and his case as such fell within the ambit of Section 84 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The other contention of the appellant was that the deceased suffered injuries due to fall from a roof who eventually died. The trial court, however, negativing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and placing reliance on the testimony of witnesses of the State, recorded verdict of guilt under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life.

(3.) NOW , we may dilate on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which can be discussed with brevity, that having been broadly spelt out in the judgment of the court below. Ram Bali Pandey (P. W.4) reiterating his earlier version stated at trial about the appellant having dealt successive blows on the head of Gajendra Pandey while he was going to house to take bread from his bhabhi, as instructed by his mother. The appellant was overpowered by him and other persons and also he was relieved of the spade. Though the injured was carried to the hospital but he was declared dead. The other witnesses who projected themselves to be ocular witnesses of the incident were Kapildeo Pandey (P.W.1), Radheyshyam Pandey (P.W.2), Gautam Pandey (P.W. 3) Sri Ram Chaubey (P.W.6) and Lalmati Devi (P.W.7), who stated at trial about the appellant having dealt two successive blows on the head of the deceased with spade when he dropped on the ground and though the injured was carried to the hospital, he could not survive. Radhey Shyam Pandey (P.W.2) was a witness to the seizure of blood stained earth and also the spade by the Police. The witness stated that though the appellant wanted to deal blows on Ram Bali Pandey too but since he was overpowered, the aim was lost. The appellant, in his defence, has pleaded insanity at the material time of incident.