RAN VIJAY SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27th June, 1992, whereby appellants, namely Ran Vijay Singh, Prakash Singh (dead) and Jalian Singh have been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life, whereas the appellant, namely Ran Vijay Singh has been further held guilty under section 323 of the I.P.C., but no separate sentence for the said offence has been inflicted.

(2.) The prosecution case, as it appears from the Fardbayan of Ravinandan Shukla (P.W. 6) in brief is that on 22nd May, 1983, Sadhu Charan Shukla (deceased), father of the informant sold 11 pieces of bamboo at the rate of Rs. 20/- each to one Gobardhan Mahli (P.W.2). Thereafter, the informant, at the instruction of his father went to the house of Gobardhan Mahli to count the bamboos sold. In the meantime, appellant Ran Vijay Singh reached to the place and raised objection against cutting and selling of bamboos and he told that the bamboo bush belonged to him and therefore the deceased had no authority to sell those bamboos. In course of raising objection against selling of Bamboo, altercation took place between Ran Vijay Singh and the informant. Sadhu Charan Shukla (deceased), father of the informant, also reached to the place, whereafter, appellant Ran Vijay Singh caused assault to him by means of Lathi. When the informant intervened, he was also assaulted by appellant Ran Vijay Singh.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment and findings of the court below mainly on the ground that there is inconsistency in the statement of witnesses and there are material contradictions and omissions in their statements. All the material witnesses, i.e. P.W.1, P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6 are closely related to the deceased and they all are interested witnesses. As per the Fardbayan, the incident took place at about 4-4.30 p.m. in the evening within the village, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. The genesis of occurrence, the place of occurrence have not been proved. The Investigating Officer has not been examined as a result the place of occurrence has not been established by the prosecution and there are major contradictions in the statement of witnesses with regard to the place of occurrence. Further more, the decease and other so called injured witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 had confined themselves within the house after the incident and they did not take pain to inform the police. The injuries caused to P.W. 1 and P.W.6, as disclosed by the doctor P.W.8 are not as such that they could not move or they could not inform the police. Therefore, there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. and therefore, the Fardbayan is shrouded with doubts and it cannot be a reliable document. It is more important that so called injured witnesses, who claimed themselves to be eye witnesses, did not bother to go to the doctor before lodging of the F.I.R. and they stuck to their home for two days and they were examined only on 24th May, 1983. There is old long standing enmity between the parties and therefore, false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out.