ORAL JUDGMENT
The present appeal arises out of judgment dated 19th of July, 2002, passed by learned Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 190 of 1991 by which the two appellants, namely, Jai Ram Singh and Suresh Singh were convicted of offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years as also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, else, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
2. The occurrence took place on 15.06.1990 at 9 A.M and as per the prosecution case, the two appellants were about to raise a Palani on the informant's land who objected to the acts of the appellants upon which appellant Jai Ram Singh is said to have gone back to his house hurriedly abusing the informant P.W 5 Ram Nath Singh to come back with a Bhala and by uttering that the informant be killed, gave a blow with the weapon which pierced into the stomach of the informant. Ram Nath Singh, the informant, fell down on the ground and shouted for help whereupon appellant Jai Ram Singh again is alleged to have attempted a blow with Bhala upon the informant but as per his story he took a turn and was hit on his back. In the meantime, Suresh Singh who was armed with a Farsa came forward to wield a blow with the weapon but the informant stated that he attempted to ward it off by his legs, still he was hit on his head. In the meantime, on hearing the cries or shouts of the informant P.W 3 Raj Nath Singh and P.W 4 Deo Nath Singh were attracted to the scene of occurrence and they came and saw it.
3. It appears that Ram Nath Singh, P.W 5 was shifted to the State Dispensary, Basantpur and he was, as may appear from the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2, referred to District Hospital, Siwan, where he was admitted and laparotomy was conducted upon him to repair the multiple punctured wounds of his gut as appears from the evidence of P.W 2, Dr. S.K Aman. While he was being given the first-aid or was being attended for his wounds in State Dispensary, Basantpur, his statement in the form of a Fardbeyan was recorded and that was the basis for lodging the report. The Fardbeyan of P.W 5 has been marked as Ext. 2.
4. It appears that the investigation of the case was taken up by P.W 6, S.I Bhola Choudhary, as per whose evidence he went to inspect the place of occurrence which was shown to him by P.W 4, Deo Nath Singh and as per the description given by P.W 6, it was a Sahan land. The Investigating Officer found a Jhopri situated at a distance of about fifty yards from the place and that Jhopri was that of P.W 4 Deo Nath Singh. A Palani was also found burnt which, as per the prosecution story, was set at fire by the accused persons. There was a Ashoka tree standing on the place of occurrence and near that particular Ashoka tree, the Investigating Officer found a few drops of blood. He recorded the statement of the witnesses and the informant and after completing the investigation submitted charge-sheet for trial of the accused persons.
5. What appears from the facts introduced through cross-examination and some facts admitted is that there was a dispute of the parties for Plot No. 1418 which was the ancestral properties between the parties and undisputedly, they were holding certain shares in that particular land which appears quite big in area. It further appears that there had been some transaction in respect of other lands also in between one or other member of the family and that, probably, also gave rise to a situation of acrimony between the parties. It was this background which was pleaded as the reason for false implication of the two appellants. Besides, it was also suggested to witnesses that there had been a counter case and on that account the appellants had falsely been implicated.
6. In support of the charge, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses out of whom, P.Ws 1 and 2 were the two doctors, namely, Dr. Akhatar Hussain who had initially examined P.W 5, Ram Nath Singh in State Dispensary, Basantpur and had referred P.W 5, the injured Ram Nath Singh to District Hospital, Siwan for further treatment which was administered to him by P.W 2, Dr. S.K Aman. The evidence of P.W 1 indicates that he had found one incised wound on the right back of occipital bone measuring 2½”×¼”× muscle deep caused by a sharp cutting weapon and was simple in nature, while the other incised wounds one on the right lower back measuring 4”×¼”× muscle deep. The third incised wound was on the back of right scapula measuring 2½”×¼”× muscle deep which was also caused by some sharp cutting weapon like the second incised wound and in addition to the above, there was a solitary sharp penetrating wound on the right abdomen. P.W 1 has not specified as to what was the dimension of that penetrating wound which was found on the abdomen of P.W 5.
7. As regards the evidence of P.W 2, he has stated that on being referred to Sadar Hospital, Siwan, Ram Nath Singh was admitted into his ward and remained under his treatment and he found that there was a sharp cut wound, up to abdominal cavity on right side of the abdomen and after resuscitation of the injured, laparotomy was performed upon him for repairing multiple penetrating wounds on the gut of the injured. As per evidence of P.W 2, there was no other injury found or recorded by him and in his opinion the injury which was found by him and which was repaired by him was grievous in nature caused by sharp edged weapon, like a Bhala. Thus, there may not be any doubt that Ram Nath Singh had a penetrating wound which had been caused by a sharp pointed weapon, like, a Bhala and to that extent the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 2 go hand in hand with the prosecution case and as may presently appear from the subsequent discussion of the oral evidence with the oral testimony as well.
8. Ram Nath Singh has reiterated the same facts that the accused persons were getting the land measured and were about to raise a Palani on it which was objected to by him which ultimately turned into some verbal duel between the parties upon which Jai Ram Singh went inside his house to come back with a Bhala to give a blow to him on his abdomen. P.W 5 further stated that after he had fallen down on the ground, appellant Jai Ram Singh put his leg on the abdomen of the injured, pulled out the Bhala and attempted another blow with it, but he took a turn to be hurt on his back. He also stated that appellant Suresh Singh had given a Farsa blow to him on his head. So far as the evidence of P.W 3 Raj Nath Singh or P.W 4 Deo Nath Singh is concerned, the Court has some hesitation in accepting their presence from the very inception of the dispute or the quarrel which had ensued between the parties on account of lodging of protest by the informant to the plan for raising the Palani by the appellants. But, while considering the evidence of P.W 3 Raj Nath Singh, the Court has some facts before it coming out from his evidence which was inspiring its confidence. He might not have been present at the scene of occurrence, as I have just noted, from the very inception of the quarrel, but he was present or had arrived at the scene of occurrence from the stage when he had seen the Bhala being pulled out of the injury or the incision which it had created after having pierced into the body of the informant. Thus, even if P.W 3 cannot be the eye witness to the main act of piercing of Bhala, he could be a reliable witness to that part of the occurrence, which related to the pulling out of the Bhala and attempting another blow upon Ram Nath Singh, the injured. So far as P.W 4, Deo Nath Singh is concerned, he has claimed that he was taking his meals and on hearing the cry of the informant, he rushed out of his house to come to the place of occurrence and as things appear from his evidence also, he does not appear to be a witness to the main part of the occurrence, that is, the giving the blow with Bhala by Jai Ram Singh, but his evidence to that extent, when he stated that he had seen Ram Nath Singh lying on the ground in an injured condition, also directly or indirectly supports the prosecution story that Ram Nath Singh had been assaulted and the blow was given with a Bhala. Thus, the circumstances attending on the commission of the offence do support the prosecution story somehow or the other, to some extent or in a greater extent.
9. However, Suresh Singh, the appellant no. 2 had allegedly given a single Farsa blow to the informant and that injury was not found by P.W 2 but P.W 1 had found an incised wound on the occipital part of the head of the informant which was simple in nature. There was no repetition of blow by Suresh Singh and as I have already noted, P.W 2 did not find any such injury. In this background, in my considered view, it does appear appropriate that benefit of doubt may be given to Suresh Singh.
10. It was contended by Sri. Bindhyachal Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that it was an incident which had flared up on the spur of the moment and as such the sentence may be to be reduced considering that the incident had occurred as far back as in 1990. Submission also was that by now the appellant Jai Ram Singh has reached as matured an age of as 80 years and leniency is the requirement as regards the sentence imposed upon him. The issue has been joined by learned Additional Public Prosecutor who has submitted that the circumstances and the manner of occurrence which emerge from the nature of injuries described by P.W 2 indicate that it was a fit case under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in the facts of the case, the learned court below had already taken a lenient view which was not justified under the facts of the case.
11. As regards the submission regarding the occurrence having been the result of a flair up between the parties on the spur of the moment, this Court simply wants to note that it might be a flair up on account of dispute for some immoveable property, but the further facts indicated that Jai Ram Singh had retreated to his house to come back with a Bhala and by uttering that the informant be killed, had given a blow on such vital a part of his body as the abdomen which blow had resulted in multiple puncture wounds on the gut of P.W 5. It itself indicated the determined mind which was clearly indicating the knowledge of committing the act. When I was considering that aspect of the case and was examining the quantum of sentence which was inflicted upon appellant Jai Ram Singh, I was very much convinced that the learned Judge had really been very-very lenient in passing the order of sentence. It was a case which was very much covered with the second part of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the learned Judge was probably missing such vital part of the jurisdiction of the Court to inflict appropriate punishment. Punishment is not merely a punishment, it is some sort of reconciliation between the victim of the offence and justice by appropriately passing the sentence so as to sending a message to the society that the acts were noticed and properly dealt with. Lenient view on sentencing very often leads to multiplicity in commission of offences and it is desirable that judges mind their sentencing jurisdiction very seriously.
12. In the above view of the matter, I do not find any need or requirement of interfering with the finding of guilt and the order of sentence which was passed against appellant Jai Ram Singh. But, considering the conflict between the two medical men on the injuries which were found on P.W 5, I give benefit of doubt to appellant Suresh Singh and acquit him of the charge for which he had been found guilty of by setting aside the judgment of his conviction and the order of sentence passed against him. Suresh Singh is on bail. He shall stand discharged from the liability of his bond. Appellant Jai Ram Singh shall immediately surrender himself to the custody of the court to be remanded to serve out his sentence. The appeal is partly allowed as regards appellant Suresh Singh and is dismissed as regards appellant Jai Ram Singh.
Comments