=========================================================== 1. Ram Prasad Choudhary 2. Devendra Choudhary, sons of Late Sheo Dhari Choudhari v. With
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.366 of 2001 =========================================================== 1. Ram Prasad Choudhary 2. Devendra Choudhary, sons of Late Sheo Dhari Choudhari, both residents of village Rampur Chaklala, P.S. Jandaha, District Vaishali The State of Bihar Versus With .... .... Appellant/s .... .... Respondent/s
Legal Reasoning
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 379 of 2001 =========================================================== 1. Suresh Choudhary son of Shankar Choudhary 2. Ashok Choudhary @ Ashok Kumar Choudhary 3. Dip Narain Choudhary, sons of Sri Ram Prasad Choudhary, all residents of village Rampur Chaklala, P.S. Jandaha, District Vaishali Versus .... .... Appellant/s The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 366 of 2001) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No. 379 of 2001) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kr. Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Z. Hoda, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-12-2013 The Appellants of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.366 of 2001 have been convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 313 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for five years and a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of which further R.I. for three months, six months and one year respectively. The Appellants No.1 and 2 of Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No.379 of 2001 have been convicted under Sections 147, 323 and 452 I.P.C. and Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2001 dt.12-12-2013 2 sentenced to R.I. for six months, six months and one year respectively. The Appellant No.3 has been convicted under Section 148 and 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for six months and one year respectively by a judgment dated 27.9.2001 and 1.10.2001 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.128 of 1993. The case of the Complainant is that on 6.6.1991 at 7.30 A.M. when the Complainant was playing a loudspeaker at his house Appellant Ram Prasad Choudhary came and objected to his act. When the Complainant resisted, an altercation arose between them, at which the rest of the accused persons variously armed came to his house and pulled him down to his door. Appellant Dip Narain Choudhary is said to have given Hasua blow on the left arm causing bleeding injury and when his sister-in-law Pramila Devi came to save him she was also assaulted by lathi, danda, fists and slaps, on account of which she aborted her two months old foetus. The defence of the Appellants was that the present case was a counter blast to a case instituted against the Complainant and others by Appellant Devendra Choudhary for an act committed on 6.6.1991 at 8.30 P.M. and also examined two witnesses and proved certain documents in support of the same. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in all. Out Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2001 dt.12-12-2013 3 of whom, P.W.1 Sakal Manjhi stated that on the date of occurrence when he was going to work from his house and reached the house of Raj Kumar he found an altercation going on between the parties in which the accused persons assaulted the Informant and his sister-in- law. In his cross-examination he stated that the Appellants Ram Prasad and Devendra were brothers and on the date of occurrence the daughter of Ram Prasad was getting married. He further stated that Appellants Devendra and Dip Narain had also been injured in the same occurrence. P.W.2 Kaleshwar Bhagat also narrated an eye witness account and once again supported the fact that the daughter of Ram Prasad was getting married on the said date. P.W.3 Lala Rai has not supported the case of the prosecution and hence declared hostile. P.W.4 Pramila Devi is the victim herself, who allegedly suffered abortion on account of assault of the accused persons. Her attention was drawn to the medical treatment, she had been meted after the occurrence and also to the fact that the Appellant Devendra Choudhary had filed a case against Laldeo and others at the Police Station in which accused Laldeo and Raj Kumar (present Complainant) had been arrested by the police. P.W.5 Raj Kumar, the Complainant, stated that on the date of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2001 dt.12-12-2013 4 occurrence in the morning Ram Prasad Choudhary came to his door and told him to slow voice of the loudspeaker, at which he told him to close the door if he did not want to listen music and then the accused persons started assaulting him and when his sister-in-law came to rescue him, on account of this assault he and his sister-in-law both were injured. It was suggested to him that in fact that he had shut the mike of the Appellant on the date of occurrence. He admits that he was an accused in the case instituted by Appellant Devendra Choudhary with regard to an assault upon his wife. However, he denies that he had seen Rampari Devi injured on the said date. P.W.6 Dr. Sheo Bachan Singh stated that he examined Pramila Devi on 6.6.1991 and found her bleeding excessively. However the abortion had taken place about one month back from the date of his examination. He also examined Raj Kumar Mahto but was of the opinion that the injury could be manufactured. I find from the defence documents that an Information was given at the Police Station on 6.6.1991 at 10 A.M. by Appellant Devendra Choudhary, whereas the present Complaint was instituted the next date on 7.6.1991 even though the occurrence had taken place at 7.30 A.M.. Under the circumstances of the case on going through the prosecution evidence and the defence documents, I would be of the opinion that the prosecution has not brought the correct version of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.366 of 2001 dt.12-12-2013 5 the incident before the Court. In such circumstances, it would be unsafe for this Court to maintain the conviction of the Appellants. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the Appellants, both the appeals are allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 27.9.2001 and 1.10.2001 by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No.128 of 1993 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted and are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. NAFR/Narendra/- (Anjana Prakash, J)