In Manoj Singh v. State of Bihar and Satyendra Singh v. State f Bihar, Patna High Court's Justice Sunil Kumar Panwar observed: "in my view, non-examination of Investigation officer in the present case is a serious infirmity resulting prejudice being caused to the appellants, therefore, conviction of the appellants cannot be sustained on this score." Drawing on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence available on record, he concluded: "I am of the considered view that prosecution has failed to prove the charges leveled against the accused-appellants beyond reasonable doubts. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted by giving benefits of doubt and they are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds."
These appeals have been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Rohtas at Sasaram, dated January 10, 2006 in Sessions Trial No. 409/1988, whereby and whereunder all the appellants/convicts including Manoj Singh were convicted under Sections 448, 342, 143 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellants Kamo Singh, Krishna Singh, Baban Singh and Chandrama Singh were found guilty under Sections 323 of the IPC and the accused-appellant Manoj Singh was found guilty also under Section 436 of the IPC. The appellant/convict Manoj Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under Section 436 of the IPC. Appellants/convicts appellants Kamo Singh, Krishna Singh, Baban Singh and Chandrama Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 323 of the IPC. All the appellants including Manoj Singh were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section of IPC one year under Section 342 of the IPC and also, they were sentenced for six months under section 143 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The prosecution case was according to the F.I.R. is that on November 6, 1986 while the P.W.-5 (informant) was at his door, the appellants Kameshwar Singh, Krishna Singh, Baban Singh and Chandrama Singh came at the house of informant and demanded cock but the informant denied to give the same upon which, the above-named accused/appellants assaulted him by leg, fists and slaps. When the brother of the informant tried to save him, the accused persons also assaulted him. Again at 5-6 P.M., the named accused along with other accused Manoj Singh, Ranjan Singh, Chhotelal Singh, Satendra Singh, Dhirendra Singh, Sudama Singh came and entered the house of the informant after breaking lock of door. The informant fled away but his brother Murari Ram and nephew Basishta were present. The appellant Manoj Singh lit fire by match due to which thatched of his brother Nandu Ram burnt at some extent. In the meantime, villagers came and extinguished the fire and all the accused persons fled away. In the alleged occurrence, the informant and his brother sustained injuries on their bodies.
On the basis of aforesaid written application of the informant, police registered a formal FIR on November 6, 1986 as Harijan Dehri P.S. Case No. 45 of 1986. After completion of investigation, investigating officer submitted charge sheet against the appellants/convicts. On the basis of charge sheet and materials available on record, cognizance for the offence was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for its disposal. The defense of the appellants/convicts totally denied from the charges leveled against them and pleaded for their innocence.
The Court examined whether the prosecution has been able to convict the appellants/accused persons beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt or not. It went through the entire prosecution evidence and other materials available on record. It concluded that "The right of bringing the record of contradictions in the statement of witnesses made before I.O. is a very valuable right of the accused and by showing that the witness has made improvements or has given evidence, which contradicts his earlier statement, the accused is able to satisfy the Court that the witnesses are not reliable witness."
No comments:
Post a Comment