Hira Lal Bhagat v. State Of Bihar

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record.

2. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated

10.2.1998 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions trial no. 51/1993 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under the above stated section whereas the appellant was acquitted of the charge framed against him under section 307 of the IPC.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 4, Bechu Bhagat, gave his fardbeyan on 24.11.1991 at about 11 a.m. to the ASI of Bhorey police station in injured condition at referal hospital to this effect that on the same day at about 7 a.m. he had gone to see his field and when he reached near his field, he noticed that the appellant was Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.82 of 1998 dt.31-01-2013 2 cutting ridge of his field upon which he forbade him to do so but the appellant started abusing him and gave chura blow on his chest. He raised alarm which attracted witnesses and after that he was taken to hospital by his son Sri Kishun Bhagat.

4. On the basis of fardbeyan of P.W4, Bhorey P.S. case no.97/1991 for the offences under section 307 and other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly, formal first information report was drawn against the appellant under sections 447, 323, 324, 307 of the IPC and the matter was investigated and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under the aforesaid sections was submitted. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way.

5. The appellant was charged for the offence punishable under sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.

6. In support of its case, prosecution examined, altogether, five witnesses and also got exhibited some documentary evidence. The statement of the appellant was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C in which he denied the prosecution story. No evidence was adduced by the appellant in support of his defence.

7. The learned trial court, having considered the evidences available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner as stated above.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that out of five prosecution witnesses only P.W. 1 and injured- informant P.W. 4 supported the prosecution case and so far as P.W 3 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.82 of 1998 dt.31-01-2013 3 is concerned, he himself admitted that he had not seen the occurrence rather after alleged occurrence he took the injured to the hospital. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that P.W 1, Ramayan Singh is not an eye-witness of the alleged occurrence and, as a matter of fact, P.W 4 brought the aforesaid case on account of land dispute and except deposition of P.W 4, there is no corroborating evidence to show that the appellant had given chura blow to P.W 1.

9. On the other hand, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order submitting that P.W. 4, who is injured of this case, supported the prosecution story and, specifically, stated that the appellant gave chura blow causing injury on his chest and the aforesaid statement of P.W. 4 is corroborated by P.W 2 who examined P.W 4 after the alleged occurrence and found stabbed injury on front of the chest of P.W 4.

10. Admittedly, except P.W.4, only one witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution to prove this fact that it was the appellant who had given chura blow to P.W. 4.

11. P.W.1, Ramayan Singh claimed himself to be eye witness of the alleged occurrence and he stated that at the time of the alleged occurrence, he was working in his field and heard noise towards the field of P.W. 4. He further stated that he saw that the appellant gave chura blow to P.W 4 and after that several persons assembled there. This witness was cross-examined on behalf of the appellant but there is nothing in the deposition of this witness to disbelieve his statement. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.82 of 1998 dt.31-01-2013 4

12. P.W. 4, informant as well as injured of this case has also stated that it was the appellant who gave chura blow to him as a result of which he sustained injury on his chest.

13. P.W.2, Dr. P. Jha stated that on 24.11.1991 he examined P.W 4 and found stabbed injury on his chest. This witness proved injury report of P.W 4 as exhibit 1.

14. P.W 3 is the son of P.W4. This witness stated that after the alleged occurrence he took P.W. 4 to hospital where his treatment was done

15. P.W 5, Rajendra Bhagat has been declared hostile and there is nothing important in the deposition of this witness.

16. On careful perusal of depositions of the prosecution witnesses, I find that story of assault is fully supported by P.W. 1 as well as P.W 4 and furthermore, P.W 2 supported that stabbed wound was found on the chest of P.W 4 after the occurrence and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the prosecution proved its case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant under section 324 of the IPC.

17. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, admittedly, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 324 of the IPC but admittedly, the alleged occurrence took place in the year 1991 and the appellant faced trial till 1998. Furthermore, I find that P.W 4 has admitted at para 4 of his examination-in-chief that there was land dispute between him and the appellant and furthermore, P.W4 has admitted at para 6 of his cross-examination that the appellant is his nephew. Therefore, it is Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.82 of 1998 dt.31-01-2013 5 apparent from the aforesaid materials that the alleged occurrence took place on account of land dispute and the appellant is agnate of P.W4. So, in the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstance, I think it proper to sentence the appellant to the period already undergone instead of sending him behind the bar. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in course of trial.

18. On the basis of the aforesaid discussions, this criminal appeal stands dismissed with the modification in the sentence order in the manner as stated above. Shahid/AFR (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J)