Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.321 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.321 of 2001 (Against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 11-09-2001 passed by Shri A. P. Srivastava, Fast Track Court No. –I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1980/ 11 of 2001) Parma Singh @ Parmanand Thakur, S/o Late Gaibi Thakur, resident of village-Damaria, P.S. Parwata, District-Khagaria, at present residing at Tarwa, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District-Siwan. Versus .... .... Appellant The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent ========================================================= Appearance :
Legal Reasoning
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranvir Singh, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-01-2013 Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard learned counsel Sri Ranvir Singh appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae and also heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 11-09-2001 passed by Shri A. P. Srivastava, Fast Track Court No. –I, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 150 of 1980/ 11 of 2011 by which and whereunder, he convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/S 324 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.321 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 one year under the aforesaid section. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that P.W. 3 Paramhansh Tiwary gave his fardbeyan on 06-01-1977 at 10.00 a.m. at Sadar Hospital, Siwan, to this effect that on the same day at about 8.00 a.m., he was got cutting stone with the help of P.W. 1 and others near Ashram. In the meantime, the appellant, S/o, P. Devi and three unknown persons, came there and prevented him from cutting the stone and, upon which, he made protest and then, the appellant stabbed twice causing injury on his abdomen and having sustained the injury, he fell down on the earth and after that, S/o P. Devi gave FARSA blow on his head. He further stated that S/o P. Devi also gave FARSA blow to Ramhansh. The aforesaid occurrence was witnessed by Deenanath and others. 4. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan of the P.W. 3, Siwan Muffasil P.S. Case No. 11 of 1977 was registered and formal FIR was drawn up. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted for the offences punishable under Sections- 307, 326, 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions, in usual way. 5. The appellant was put on trial and he was charged for the offences punishable under Sections- 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, to which, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the appellant, prosecution examined, altogether, three witnesses. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant in support of his defence. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.321 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 7. The learned trial court, having relied upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner, as stated above. 8. Learned counsel Mr. Ranvir Singh (Amicus Curiae) appearing for the appellant submitted that neither the doctor nor the I.O. was examined by the prosecution and non-examination of the aforesaid official witnesses, caused serious prejudice to the appellant. He further submitted that the fardbeyan of the informant has not been legally proved by the prosecution and, therefore, the fardbeyan of the informant is inadmissible in evidence and, therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order cannot sustain in the eye of law. 9. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the informant has been examined by the prosecution as prosecution witness No. 3 and he has, specifically, stated that he had made his fardbeyan before the police in Siwan Sadar Hospital and had put his thump impression, so, the P.W. 3 has legally proved contents of his fardbeyan and, therefore, even if, the fardbeyan of the informant has not formally been proved, then also, it does not make any difference. He further submitted that the informant (P.W. 3) has supported the story of assault and the statement of P.W. 3 has been corroborated by P.Ws. 1 & 2 who claimed themselves to be an eye witness of the alleged occurrence and, therefore, prosecution succeeded to prove this fact that on the alleged date of occurrence, P.W. 3 was assaulted by the appellant and others. 10. In course of trial, as stated above, only three prosecution Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.321 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 witnesses were examined and admittedly, P.W. 3 is informant of this case. This witness stated that the appellant gave twice dagger blow to him and this witness also stated that his fardbeyan was recorded at Siwan Sadar Hospital and after that, he was referred to Patna. This witness has been cross-examined by the defence and he denied the suggestion of the defence that he lodged the present case to save his skin from counter case. Therefore, it is admitted that a counter case was also brought by the side of the appellant for the offence of the same day and, therefore, it is well proved that an occurrence had taken place between the parties on the alleged date of occurrence. Admittedly, no evidence was adduced by the appellant in support of the defence, so, it is not clear as to what was the version of appellant in counter case. Moreover, the P.W. 3 has supported the story of assault and his statement is corroborated by P.Ws. 1 & 2 and, therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. 11. However, the alleged occurrence took place in the year, 1977 and the appellant was put on trial in the year, 1995 when he was remanded in the case. Admittedly, the prosecution could not succeed to prove charge under Section-307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant has been convicted only for the offence under Section-324 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, the age of the appellant was found by the trial court as 66 years. Furthermore, it appears that there was case and counter case between the parties, so, in my view, the end of justice would meet, if, the appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in course of trial. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.321 of 2001 dt.29-01-2013 12. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this Cr. Appeal stands dismissed with modification in sentence order in the manner as stated above. Patna High Court Dated/ the 29th day of January, 2013 A.K.V./-NAFR (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J)