MOTILAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the above named accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 18.3.1989 passed by the then 5th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 160/87 whereby all the three appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Accused appellant No. 1 Motilal Singh has further been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year but the same sentence has been directed to run concurrently with the substantive sentence of seven years of R.I. The parties were inimical to each other as the admitted facts is that there were civil suit and the criminal case pending between the parties. The case of the prosecution is that the Informant Ram Narain Singh on 11.4.1985 at about 5 p.m. went to village Babutolla to purchase wheat and at about 7 p.m. in the return journey when he reached near village Sitalpur Kothi within the jurisdiction of Dariapur Police Station he was way laid by accused Motilal Singh and Bhola Singh alongwith two other unknown persons. They surrounded him and held him by the handle of his Cycle then the accused appellant No. 2 Bishwanath Singh placed order on the other co-accused to kill the Informant. At this Motilal Singh i.e. accused appellant No. 1 fired from his country made pistol injuring him on his left face, nose, left fore-head, shoulder and the left side of neck. The Informant then caught hold of the barrel of the pistol at which accused Bhola Singh inflicted Chhura blow on his right fore-arm and right shoulder-joint. On raising of alarm by the informant, the assailants ran towards the east. He went to Dr. Parmanand Singh whose son Ranjit Singh took him to Sitalpur where some treatment was done then he was referred to Danapur Military Hospital. The statement of the Informant was recorded by the police on the next date i.e. on 12.4.1985 at about 4.30 p.m. at Danapur Civil Hospital in the surgical ward. The said statement was registered as the fardbeyan itself (Ext. 8) and investigation started. It may be mentioned here that while investigating the case by P.W. 9 he inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses, re-examined the informant and collected the injury report and then submitted charge-sheet under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against all the accused appellants including Section 27 of the Arms Act. The defence case is the total denial of the prosecution story regarding the manner and way the informant was injured. It has been urged from the side of the defence that the accused persons have been falsely implicated in the case due to civil dispute and criminal case pending. Some documents regarding civil dispute, delivery of possession, execution records have been proved by adducing evidence by the defence witnesses.

(2.) For and on behalf of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses have been examined out of them P.W. 8 Ghanshyam Ram is a formal witness who has proved the formal F.I.R. Ext. 3. P.W. 7 Dr. Anand Prasad Singh who was posted as a Medical Officer Dariyapur had examined the Informant injured on 11.4.1985 at 8.30 p.m. he found the following injuries on the person of the Informant:

(3.) P.W. 1 Sant Bilas Singh is an independent witness. He had also seen the occurrence when he went near the Bandh at the time of occurrence. The evidence of individual witness had been elaborately discussed by the learned Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment. During the course of trial defence tried to establish a case that regarding the Bandh itself there was enmity between the two part as there was a plan of cutting the ridge by the Informant party, where the occurrence took place but that factum could not be proved in its semblance from the side of the defence itself. I am in total agreement with the learned Court below that the prosecution could be able to prove the charges against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. Regarding roping of all the accused persons under Section 34 of the I.P.C. no much argument has been placed but it appears from the evidence itself that accused appellant No. 1 Motilal Singh and Accused appellant No. 3 Bhola Singh have personally participated in the occurrence by giving blows with the deadly weapons on the informant. There are overt Act attributed on both the accused appellants. Regarding the accused appellant No. 2, Bishwanath Singh there is also evidence to the effect that he was person who alongwith other had surrounded the informant and his cycle was caught hold of by him and placed order to others to kill the informant. Thus his participation is also proved on the evidence adduced from the side of the prosecution. Thus no illegality has been caused in roping of the accused appellants under Section 34 of the I.P.C., Regarding the conviction thus there is no scope to interfere. Regarding the sentence imposed it is submitted that in relation to the injuries which were simple in natures the sentence imposed is too harsh. In a conviction under Section 307, I.P.C. nature of injury is not of much importance. It is to be seen whether there was attempt from the side of the accused-appellant to commit murder. Here the accused appellants were armed with deadly weapons and they inflicted injuries by the weapons on the person of the Informant as the Informant gave resistance grievous injury or the murder could not be caused but it appears that the occurrence took place long one and half decade ago and by this time accused appellants had suffered the prangs of criminal prosecution. Considering the mental, financial and physical sufferance of the accused appellants I feel justice could be done by minimising the sentence for three years instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment. One year conviction under Section 27 of the Arms Act on accused appellant No. 1 Motilal Singh is proper and justified when the same has been directed to run concurrently with the substantive sentence.