MAHANTH RAM Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Solitary appellant was convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. V, Gopalganj, in Sessions Trial No. 57 of 1992/170 of 2004 of committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and by the judgment dated 21st day of December, 2005 and by the order of sentence dated 24th day of December, 2005 he was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant along with accused Bikrama Chauhan had also been charged under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code but both were acquitted of that charge. The appellant has come up before this Court through the present appeal. There is no dispute in that Ramjit Ram, son of P.W. Kishundeo Ram, the informant of the case, was sleeping at the verandah of his house. He was assaulted and killed. The allegation is that at about 12.30 A.M. in the night intervening 6th-7th of August, 1991, deceased Ramjit Ram was assaulted by this appellant Mahanth Ram with lathi. The informant (P.W. 5) woke up on the sound arising out of the blows and found that it was this appellant who was hitting his son with lathi. The informant raised an alarm which attracted persons of neighborhood who saw the occurrence. It was stated that when his other son Yogendra Ram (P.W. 4) attempted to intervene, he was also given the blow with lathi on his shoulder by this appellant. The informant stated that he put his son on a four wheeler and brought him to Sadar Hospital, Gopalganj with the help of Rajendra Kurmi (not examined) and Bijnath Ram (not examined), but no sooner the deceased had reached the Hospital, he died. The reason behind the occurrence was that there was a dispute between the informant and the appellant in respect of the homestead land and, as such, the appellant committed the murder of Ramjit Ram.

(2.) In support of the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses, out of whom P.W. 3 Tileshari Devi was tendered for cross-examination while P.W. 1 Sima Devi, P.W. 2 Sukhali Devi and P.W. 4 Yogendra Ram, who was allegedly injured, supported the informant Kishundeo Ram who was examined as P.W. 5 during the trial. P.W. 6 Dr. Ras Bihari Chaudhary had held post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Ramjt Ram and had issued the post mortem examination report Ext. i. P.W. 7 Hira Lal Sah was a formal witness who had identified the writings of the case diary and the same was exhibited through his evidence due to non-examination of the Investigating Officer.

(3.) It is true that P.W. 1 Sima Devi, P.W. 2 Sukhali Devi and P.W. 4 Yogendra Ram have supported consistently the informant P.W. 5 Kishundeo Ram, but it is admitted by the witnesses, like, P.W. 2 in paragraph 3 of her evidence, P.W. 4 in paragraph 3 of his evidence as also the informant himself that it was a dark night. The evidence of P.W. 1 Sima Devi also raised an inference that the night was dark because she stated that she identified the accused in the light of torch flashed by her father-in-law P.W. 5. Thus, the question of identification of the accused who had committed the offence was and remains the pivotal question to consideration as to who had committed the offence. We have the consistent evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 5, but what appears from their evidence is that P.W. 4 in spite of being injured was implicating co-accused Bikrama Chauhan who had not been named in the F.I.R. In fact, the F.I.R. contained a story that it was this appellant Mahanth Ram who had given lathi blow to P.W. 4 but both P.Ws. 4 and 5 started implicating an innocent person who was not named by the informant in his F.I.R. This is one important aspect of the evidence of both P.Ws. 4 and 5 which has persuaded us to view their evidence with quite some amount of doubt. Besides, that particular line of evidence, which was an improvement upon the initial prosecution story, further raises a doubt that the witnesses had indeed identified the real culprit.