KHADU RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE appellant Khedu Ram was tried for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), others, namely, Jaddu Ram, Baijnath Ram, Makhan Ram, Laxmi Ram, Ramashankar Ram, Tappi Ram, Bhola Chamar, Jagernath Ram and Rajbanshi Ram, were tried for offence punishable under Section 302/149, IPC. Appellants Jaddu Ram, Makhan Ram and Baijnath Ram also stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 323, IPC. The trial Court on appreciation of evidences placed on behalf of the State, while acquitted Laxmi Ram, Ramashankar Ram, Tappi Mahara, Bhola Chamar, Jagernath Ram and Rajbanshi Ram of the charges brought against them, rendered verdict of guilt against appellants Makhan Ram, Baijnath Ram and Jaddu Ram under Section 323, IPC and sentenced them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months. The trial Court found appellant Khedu Ram guilty also under Section 304Part II, IPC finding him not guilty under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) SHORN of details, prosecution version based on Station Diary Entry No. 400, dated 23rd March, 1981 was that on the said date at about 6 to 7 a.m. while Mahavir Ram (PW 9) along with Tapsi Ram (PW 6) and Bipat Ram (PW 8) was harvesting wheat crops from the field for which he had secured an order in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr PC) from a competent Court, the appellants emerged holding wooden substances with them and wanted to restrain them from harvesting the crops on premises that since the appeal preferred by them against the findings recorded by the Magistrate in a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was pending before the Court, they would not permit him to harvest the wheat crop. It was alleged that after Mahavir Ram retorted with assertion of his right as vested in him by virtue of an order of the Court, appellant Khedu Ram dealt lathi blow on his head and it was alleged that when Tapsi and Bipat came for his rescue, they too were subjected to assault by the appellants. As if this was not enough for the appellants, it was alleged that after Indrajit Ram (deceased), who was passing through the way, wanted to pacify them advising them to take the matter to Court of Law, appellant Khedu dealt a severe blow on his head whereupon he dropped to the ground and with these narrations made by Mahavir Ram, first information report was drawn up at Sikta Police Station and investigation commenced. During pendency of investigation, after Inderjit Ram succumbed to the injuries sustained by him, the Investigating Officer held inquest over the dead body of Indrajit Ram, sent the dead body to mortuary for post -mortem examination, recorded statement of witnesses, seized blood stained wearing apparels of Inderjit Ram and on receipt of the post -mortem report and on conclusion of the investigation, laid charge -sheet before the Court and the appellants along with others were eventually put on trial. At trial, the State examined altogether witnesses which include two doctors; the injured father of the deceased and also independent witnesses and the trial Court finding the witnesses credible, rendered verdict of guilt against the appellants and sentenced them in the manner stated above.

(3.) A lot of criticisms were made by the learned counsel for the appellants to impeach the propriety of the findings recorded by the trial Court and it is sought to be urged with the aid of evidence of Mahadeo Ram (PW 5) that if the evidence of this witness was considered to be true on its face value, when Indrajit was admitted in Bettiah Hospital, the doctor attending him did not treat properly and for want of proper treatment, Indrajit eventually succumbed to the injuries. In quick succession, the learned counsel would urge that even the doctor (PW 7), who held autopsy over the dead body, was firm in his opinion that the injury would become septic after lapse of some time contentions were raised that as there was no occasion for the witnesses, who are said to be independent, to assemble at the place of occurrence in the morning hours of the day of incident, they were no better than chance witnesses and hence no reliance can be placed on their testimony rendered before the Court. It is urged that admitted case of the parties was that there was land dispute persisting between the parties and both the parties were putting their rival claims over the disputed land from which wheat crop was being harvested by Mahavir Ram, and in that view of the matter, it is not unlikely that Khedu Ram would exercise his right, as the appeal preferred by 40. him against the findings recorded by the Court of Executive Magistrate was pending. Stress was laid by the learned counsel for the appellants about admissions made by some of the prosecution witnesses about presence of injuries on some of the appellants also, and in this backdrop, it is strenuously urged that since the prosecution had not offered satisfactory explanation about injuries sustained by the appellants, on that score too, the prosecution case has to be considered to be incredible. Learned counsel for the State would counter the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants.