RAMA SHANKAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Broad features of the prosecution case, which have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, can be recapitulated with brevity. A police case had been registered on behest of Asharfi Sah (PW 9) with accusation that at about 7.30 a.m. on 4th November. 1988. as Rama Shankar Sah and Nathu Sah were closing the passage of drainage with earth, Ram Sakhi Devi (deceased) registered protest when there was exchange of abuses between them, pursuant to which on exhortation made by Nathu Sah to assault, Rama Shankar Sah (both hereinafter referred to as the appellant) ran for assault when Ram Sakhi Devi on being chased, suffered injuries at the hands of said Rama Shankar Sah, the appellant, when he pierced bhala in the right side of her chest near the house of Bhola Choudhary, and dropped on the ground. Though all endeavours were made to save the life of the injured, after she was taken for medical aid, she succumbed to the injuries. The fardbeyan of Asharfi Sah, husband of the deceased, was recorded by the Police Officer of Mirganj Police Station at 10 hours on 4th November, 1988 near Ravi X-ray at Mirganj, pursuant to which. First Information Report was registered and investigation followed. During investigation, the Investigating Officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, prepared inquest over the dead body of the deceased, sent the dead body to mortuary for post mortem examination and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined altogether 11 witnesses, who were husband of the deceased, some of those, who claimed to have witnessed the incident, some who turned volte face to the State, and some of those who were quite formal in nature and had simply brought some documents on the record. The State also examined doctor who held autopsy over the dead body.

(2.) The defence of the appellants both before the Court below and this Court had been plain denial of entire allegations attributed to them, and they ascribed their false implication, However, defence did not chose to examine any witness, and the Trial Court, while negativing assertions made on behalf of the appellants, rejecting plea of innocence, recorded finding of guilt convicting the appellants under Section 302/34, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Volume of arguments were pressed on behalf of the appellants obviously to assail the findings recorded by the Court below and to counter the allegations attributed to the appellants, and the foremost criticism that were sought to be made by the learned counsel for the appellants was that though Asharfi Sah (PW 9) claimed to have witnessed the incident, projecting himself to be an ocular witness, if narration made by Sukanth Choudhary (PW 1) and Kailash Sah (PW 2) was to be given any credence, they had excluded presence of Asharfi Sah during material time of incident, and in that backdrop, assertions made by Asharfi Sah giving ocular account of the incident, has to be discarded in entirety. Yet, it is urged that though recitals made in the fardbeyan of Asharfi Sah did suggest a place near the house of Bhola Choudhary, to be the place of occurrence, but the ocular account given by other witnesses did not project the place, in front of the house of Bhola Choudhary, to be the place of occurrence and on these premises it is urged that since prosecution was guilty of introducing distorted version also about place of occurrence, and also because the Investigating Officer had not been examined at trial, the place of occurrence remained ambiguous, and on this score too, the prosecution case was unworthy of credence. The other criticism which is sought to be made against the finding recorded by the Court below was that though the witnesses were making narrations with sustained consistencies that Ram Sakhi Devi suffered injuries in the process of being chased by the appellants, in the posture of the deceased about receipt of injury in process of being chased is taken into consideration. in all probability Ram Sakhi. Devi should have sustained injuries on the back, instead of chest, which has been the prosecution version. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer was also taken to be a ground to suspect the bona fide of the prosecution version, and yet. it is urged with all stress that the defence was prejudiced also on this score, as though attention of some of the witnesses was drawn by the defence, that could not be placed on the record due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer. As for the genesis of the incident, criticism was that though recitals made in the fardbeyan of Asharfi Sah was that the incident followed, when appellants were filling earth in drain in the courtyard of Asharfi Sah, contrary to these assertions made in the fardbeyan, the maker of it was stating at trial that incident followed after the appellant were closing the passage of drain.