State Of Bihar v. Madan Singh

ORAL JUDGMENT

Mandhata Singh, J.

1. Prosecution case initiated on fard-bayan of one Jogendra Prasad Singh, in brief, is that on 28.01.1996 at about 7.00-8.00 A.M, he was sitting in his house along with co-accused Nagendra Kumar, Brajnandan Singh, Upendra Singh, Pappu Kumar, Gajadhar Singh and others. Madan Singh came with his men and started pelting brick-bats. Informant opened door of the house and saw accused persons along with Gorelal Singh (since died) variously armed with shaip, garasa and other weapons. They entered his house. Madan Singh gave a shaip blow to the informant on his stomach, informant became unconscious, taken to hospital and his fard-bayan was recorded according to first information report after recovery of consciousness. Chandrika Singh was assaulted by Ramswaroop Singh, Dani Singh assaulted Gajadhar Singh, Bhushan Singh assaulted Nagendra Kumar, Ranjit Kumar S/o Madan Singh assaulted Upendra Singh, Ranjit Singh assaulted Ramswaroop Singh and Shailesh Kumar assaulted Gajadhar Singh by means of lathi. Trial has been ended in acquittal of the accused persons.

2. PW-6 is doctor and PW-8 is Investigating Officer of the case. PW-1 Chandrika Singh, PW-2 Nagendra Singh, PW-3 Upendra Singh, PW-4 Ravindra Singh, PW-5 Biresh Singh and PW-7 Jogendra Prasad Singh are stating about taking place of the incident, specifically causing of assault by accused persons. Further, specifying that Madan Singh assaulted the informant by means of Shaip on his stomach. All these witnesses except PWs-6 and 8 are from the same family except PW-5, who is brother in-law (bahnoi) of Jogendra Singh, but witnesses are doubted/disbelieved finding vital/fatal infirmities in the case, they are delay in lodging of the case. Contradiction on the point of place of occurrence, genesis and manner including assault.

3. Incident is shown taking place on 28.01.1996, fardbayan is recorded on 03.2.1996; explanation is given, but not accepted. Explanation is that after receiving the injury informant became unconscious and he regained his conscious only on the day when he gave his fard-bayan. Reason for disbelieving is that all the material witnesses remained present when the occurrence took place rather given some assault by means of lathi except PW-7. For the incident of the same day Exhibit-A, Akbarpur P.S Case No. 112 of 1996 is lodged in which one Gorelal Singh was found dead. Madan Singh main assailant of this case is informant of that case. Rightly doubt has been created by the trial Court as there was existing no circumstance preventing these witnesses to inform the incident to the police.

4. Place of occurrence is said house of the informant, but when the Investigating Officer reached there, female inmates of the house told him that no incident had taken place there rather elsewhere may not be accepted as statement of some witnesses, but no sign was found there of any kind of violence. Contradiction is also there on the point of genesis. First Information Report is to the effect that enmity was there in between the parties. Only three of the witnesses namely PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5 are stating anything about genesis, but with a different story that quarrel was there for cutting of electric wire and taking it away. They are also not constant on this point as who among the accused persons was involved in cutting and taking away the wire. PW-5 states that it was Gorelal Singh, who was bundling the wire. PW-1 is stating that Madan Singh, Gorelal Singh, Ramswaroop Singh and Dani Singh cut the wire while PW-3 states that Madan Singh, Bhushan Singh, Ranjit Singh, Shailesh Kumar and others cut the wire not the same person. So, these points including other contradictions are vital/fatal, cannot be ignored. Same have rightly been taken to doubt the prosecution case.

5. Accordingly, this Government Appeal is dismissed hereby.

6. Let a copy of first page and last page of the judgment be handed over to the Amicus Curiae for needful.