Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.335 of 1993 (Against the judgment and conviction of order dated 30.07.1993 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran (Bettiah).) =========================================================== 1. Nagina Yadav, son of Shri Raghubir Yadav, R/o village – Lagra hardi Belhawa, P.S. – Matiaria, District – West champaran. 2. Rajendra Mahato, son of Bigan Mahto, R/o village – Dawarwar, P.S. – Matiaria, District – West Champaran. 3. Chhota Kamkar @ Chhotelal @ Chhotka, son of Shri Domai Mahato, R/o – village – Serwa Naski, P.S. – Matiaria, District – West Champaran. .... .... Appellants The State of Bihar Versus =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha .... .... Respondent Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma (None turned up) For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.N. Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor ===========================================================
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-06-2013 None turned up on behalf of the appellants. On repeated calls similar was the position earlier also. Sri S.N. Prasad, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State is present. 2. Under the circumstances, this court left with no other option but either to appoint Amicus Curiae to represent the interest of the appellants, but there is general experience that such process takes much time and the court’s burden are not reduced or to proceed without any such representation, taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in a case K.S. Panduranga Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2013(2) PLJR 276(SC). It is thought proper to hear learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State and to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 examine the record and Lower Court Records and decide the appeal on its own merit, accordingly, heard Sri Prasad. 3. This is an appeal against order dated 30.07.1993 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran (Bettiah) in connection with Sessions Trial No. 121 of 1992 arising out of Sikarpur P.S. Case No. 54 of 1991 convicting the appellants under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each, in default, further to undergo one year imprisonment. 4. The prosecution case in short as revealed from fard-e-beyan of P.W.3 Maya Devi recorded at 2.00 A.M. on 8.4.1991 at her house by P.W.8, A.H. Khan, Sub-Inspector, Sikarpur Police Station, is that in the previous night while informant was sleeping in her house with her husband and six months old child at about 11.45 P.M., door was knocked and call was given for her husband, since police officials calling during query, door was broken and three miscreants entered into the room and two were standing outside, they took away the husband of the informant at the gun point, reason behind such occurrence was said to be the four months old dispute with one Upendra Sah relating to a piece of land, who also threatened to take him at task. Immediately after the occurrence informant raised alarm and Arbind Singh, Narayan Singh etc. arrived at the place of occurrence, police was informed, on arrival recorded the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 fard-e-beyan. 5. After investigation and apprehension of the three appellants in connection with another case police submitted charge-sheet and after taking cognizance, case was committed to the Court of Session, where prosecution examined altogether eight prosecution witnesses besides producing exhibits. Exhibit 1– Signature of Ranbijay Singh on U/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement. Exhibit 1/1 – Signature of Maya Devi on fard-e- beyan. Exhibit 1/2 - Signature of Arbind Kumar Singh Exhibit 1/3 – Signature of Sudhir Kumar Singh on fard-e-beyan. Exhibit 2 – U/s 164 Cr.P.C. statement of Ranbijay Singh Exhibit 3 – Test Identification Parade dated 17.08.1991 Exhibit 3/1 – Test Identification Parade dated 9.9.91 Exhibit 4 – Fard-e-beyan Exhibit 5 – First Information Report And on consideration of the materials aforesaid trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants. 6. As is evident from the judgment of the court below as well on the records that first four witnesses are relevant Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 on the point of occurrence, they are P.W.1 Sitaram Sah, who has come to say that at the relevant time he was sleeping at the door of the informant, some armed miscreants arrived and took him at nearby place forcibly and having guard on him and thereafter their companions entered into the house of the informant and took away her husband and thereafter left this witness. He further claimed to identify the miscreants by face and also during Test Identification Parade. In cross examination on these two points nothing could be taken to disbelieve the witness 7. P.W. 3 Manager Singh is also the witness on the same point. He is a chance witness meeting natural call at the relevant time and could see the informant’s husband being taken out by the miscreants. He identified by face and also participated in Test Identification Parade. 8. P.W. 4 namely, Maya Devi is the informant. She has stated the prosecution version and proved exhibit 1/1 to 1/3 and did not claimed to identify the miscreants nor could be able to identify them during trial. 9. P.W. 5 namely, Ajay Kumar Sinha, Judicial Magistrate, who recorded statement of the victim under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 10. P.W. 6 namely, Sri R. N. Rai is another Judicial Magistrate who conducted Test Identification Parade of appellant No. 1 Nagina Yadav and appellant no. 2 Rajendra Mahato by the victim and one Manager Singh P.W.3. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 11. P.W. 7 namely, Raj Kumar Singh is another Judicial Magistrate who conducted Test Identification Parade wherein appellant no. 3 Chhota Kamkar @ Chhotelal @ Chhotka, was also identified. 12. P.W.2 namely, Ranbijay Singh is the victim who prior to his statement during trial got his statement recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Ext.2), wherein he has narrated about the happenings with him and further said that about 22 hours he was kept confined in a cane field. No ill-treatment was made with him and during the period of his confinement at one point of time he was some information about arrival of the police but without any further development police returned. He was taken at a different place where letter was also obtained from him regarding perforced demanding Rs. 2.5 lacs, subsequently, after completion of the 22 hours of his confinement, again on arrival of police and on encounter he could be able to release, came at the place where police was companying but his statement was not recorded. During trial as P.W.2 this witness stated almost same thing stating good behaviour of the miscreants with him during his 22 hours and subsequently he was a bit assaulted he also shown mark of assault to police at whose instance he was also treated, but all such statement regarding his writing of letter to rescue and assault etc. does not find support from any other material on record either documentary or oral. Even the investigating officer who recorded Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.335 of 1993 dt.21-06-2013 fard-e-beyan of informant and after concluding investigation submitted charge-sheet. 13. P.W. 8 namely, Abul Hasan Khan has never said about any sort of police encounter, rescue of the victim (P.W.2) ill-treatment etc. nor any injury report etc. is available. 14. From overall consideration of the materials available on record, there appears nothing to substantiate the charge for the offences under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code which requires abduction of the person with intention to kill or disclosure in a manner to put in danger. But, as is evident from the statement of the victim, at no point of time he was so badly ill- treated rather in initial part even in confinement he got very cordial treatment and during later part some sort of simple assault inflicting no serious injury were met with him and that too not find any material. Hence, conviction of the appellants for the offence under section 364 of the Indian Penal Code is not sustainable. It is converted into Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code. 15. The appellants have already suffered imprisonment for more than two years, hence the sentence is modified to that without any fine in conviction and sentence. With
Decision
the above modification, this appeal stands disposed of. Rajeev/- (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)