PARMESHWAR PANDIT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two appellants have challenged the judgment of conviction passed in Sessions Trial No. 96 of 1987/65 of 1990 dated 17th May, 2000, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Nawadah by which they have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years for offences under Section 364 and 2 years R.I. under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE First Information Report has been instituted by Md. Irfan Alam on 3.5.1986 alleging therein that during the communal riots that took place in the year 1986 in village Pachamba, the informant along with Mehmood Alam, his uncle (Khalu Mausa) had gone to buy some articles and were proceeding towards the shop of Parmeshwar Pandit. When they were approaching the shop, they saw 20 to 25 persons standing near the shop. These persons raised 'hulla' and caught hold of Mahmood Alam whereas the informant ran away from the place of occurrence. It is alleged that these persons dragged away Mahmood Alam to some unknown place. The informant made efforts to trace him but was unable to do so.

(3.) FOR the purposes of determining the participation of the appellants in the said occurrence, this Court will now refer to the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 4. P.W. 1 has stated in his chief for the first time that Parmeshwar Pandit assaulted Mehmood Alam with a dagger and Nageshwar Kahar and Hari Kahar with swords. It is said that the victim received injury and began to bleed. In the cross-examination he has stated that there are 3 shops in his Tola and the shop of Parmeshwar Pandit is about 500 years from his house. He has also stated that he saw the miscreants from a distance of about 450 yards while he was approaching Parmeshwar's shop. Attention has been drawn to the fact that whether he has made specific allegations in the First Information Report against the aforesaid persons. He has admitted that he has not made allegations against the appellants in the First Information Report. According to him he put his signature on his Beyan without it being read out to him. On perusal of evidence of the informant (P.W. 1), it is quite clear that he has admitted that he had not made the specific allegations even in his further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Infact there is a discrepancy in the First Information Report and his further statement which is given after 5 days. It is submitted that the informant had enough time to deliberate over the matter and thereafter he has named the appellants and others in his further statement. It also does not stand to reason as to why these persons belonging to the Muslim community should venture into another Tola dominated by Hindus in a riot like situation when it was possible and there was a likelihood of there being any untoward incident specially as the Tola in which he was living had shops to cater to the needs of the Tola in question. I, therefore, find that the manner in which the informant has tried to improve upon the earlier version cannot be believed to the extent of involving of a particular person or a group of persons specially as this vital information is missing from the First Information Report although all the persons who have been named were well known to him and he claims to recognize and know them much prior to the occurrence. It is also strange that after seeing a group of so-called miscreants from the distance of 250 yards before he actually reached the alleged place of occurrence, the informant would continue to go in that direction where the persons armed with various weapons were standing, keeping in mind the fact that the village was disturbed due to the communal violence.