In this criminal appeal arising from a conviction under IPC Sections 326 and 504, the High Court examined discrepancies in eyewitness and medical evidence concerning the mode of injury and weapon used. Finding the prosecution case incomplete and the convictions unsupported by the evidence, the court quashed the judgments.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.506 of 2015
Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2006 Thana -SIDHWALIA District- GOPALGANJ =========================================================== Akalu Rai @ Aklu Rai , son of Bhukhal Rai, Resident of Village- Buchiya, P.S.Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.
The State of Bihar
.... .... Appellant/s Versus .... .... Respondent/s with
=========================================================== Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 518 of 2015 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -58 Year- 2006 Thana -BARAULI District- GOPALGANJ =========================================================== 1. Moti Lal Rai , Son of Late Radha Rawat 2. Prem Nath Rai , S/o Harihar Rawat, both are resident of village - Buchiya, Police Station - Sidhwalia, District - Gopalganj.
.... .... Appellant/s Versus
.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mritunjay Prasad Singh-Advocate Mr. Uma Shankar Prasad-Advocate For the Respondent/s : Smt. Abha Singh-A.P.P. (In CR. APP (SJ) No.518 of 2015) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Navin Kumar-Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Bipin Kumar-A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-05-2018
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 506 of 2015 wherein Akalu Rai @ Aklu Rai is the appellant and Cr. Appeal (S.J) No. 518 of 2015 wherein Moti Lal Rai and Prem Nath Rai are the appellants originate
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
2
from the common judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2015 and order of sentence dated 06.08.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-3rd , Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 93 of 2007/ 195 of 2014, convicting all the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. and each one has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years as well as to pay fine appertaining to Rs.3,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo R.I. for one month, additionally under Section 504 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently on account thereof, have been heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
3
was flowing. At that very moment, his father had not spoken a word. He was not present on the aforesaid date as had gone to Gorakhpur. On 28.04.2006 at about 5:30 when he returned from Gorakhpur, he had seen the drain broken, whereupon he inquired from Akalu Rai why he had broken the same over which, Prem Nath Rai, Deep Narayan Rai, Motilal Rai came and said that bring farsa and he should be cut, whereupon Deep Narayan Rai came with f arsa and gave a blow over his head causing injury thereupon. Second blow was given by Prem Nath Rai over his head causing injury. He became unconscious seeing the blood and fell down. Then thereafter, Akalu Rai gave iron rod blow. On hue and cry, the local inhabitants rushed seeing whom, accused persons fled away. It has further been disclosed that they are on land dispute. He had further stated that Brij Mohan Pandey, Ram Prasad Rai, Ram Kishore Rai and others lifted him to hospital where his treatment was being done.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
4
5
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
judgment impugned happens to be perverse, cryptic and on account thereof, is non-sustainable. It has further been submitted that on account of inconsistency amongst the ocular as well as medical evidence, the prosecution case is found completely cankered along with objective finding of the I.O. regarding the place of occurrence. So, the finding recorded by the learned lower Court, more particularly for an offence punishable under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is not at all found duly substantiated from the materials available on the record. In likewise manner, also questioned over validity of finding regarding Section 504 I.P.C.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
6
evidence will prevail upon the medical evidence. Unless and until, it completely rules out the manner whereunder the prosecution had alleged the manner of occurrence. In Baliraj Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2017 (3) P.L.J.R. 10 (SC) , it has held:-
“13. …………………………………………………It is settled proposition in criminal jurisprudence that ordinarily, the value of medical evidence is only corroborative. It proves that the injuries could have been caused in the manner alleged and nothing more. The use which the defence can make of the medical evidence is to prove that the injuries could not possibly have been caused in the manner alleged and thereby discredit the eyewitnesses.[1] In this case the nature of injury, contradiction about the time of arrival of the witnesses, contradictions between the ocular and medical evidence, non-examination of Police officer who conducted seizure and subsequent improvement by one of the eye witness casts a serious doubt on the prosecution’s case.
As held in Solanki Chimanbhai UkaBhai vs. State
of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 484 .
“24. It is trite that where the eye-witnesses' account is
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
7
found credible and trustworthy, medical-opinion pointing to alternative possibilities is not accepted as conclusive. Witnesses, as Bantham said, are the eyes and ears of justice. Hence the importance and primacy of the orality of the trial-process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence, including medical-evidence, as the sole touch-stone for the test of such credibility. The evidence must be tested for its inherent consistency and the inherent probability of the story; consistency with the account of other witnesses held to be credit-worthy; consistency with the undisputed facts; the 'credit' of the witnesses; their performance in the witness-box; their power of observation etc. Then the probative value of such evidence becomes eligible to be put into the scales for a cumulative evaluation.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
8
informant on 28.04.2006 at 9.20 p.m. and found the following:-
I) One lacerated wound on scalp posteriorly measuring 5” x bone deep x margine separated.
II) One lacerated wound on scalp anteriorly measuring 1 ½” x skin deep x margine separated.
Injury happens to be caused within six hours. The nature of injury has been kept reserved, as the patient was referred to higher centre for proper investigation and treatment. Subsequently thereof, as is evident, the aforesaid witness was recalled and then, his evidence was procured on the basis of attested photo copy of the injury report having in his pen (exhibited) marked as Exhibit-4/1, wherein he had not stated the nature of the injury though he had mentioned that with regard thereto, Exhibit-4/1 was issued and the same happens to be based upon the report issued by Indira Diagnostic Centre, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur as Exhibit-5. However, during course of cross-examination, he had not specified on that very score at least the nature of injury what he had though mentioned though the Exhibit-4/1 suggest injury nos.I and II to be grievous in nature. Still the nature of weapon has not been specified. During cross-examination at Para-3, he had asserted that lacerated wound cannot be caused by sharp edged weapon. In the aforesaid background, the evidence of PW-1/ informant is to be seen on primacy in the background of the fact that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
9
he happens to be the injured.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
10
back to his house, he had seen the drain completely damaged, small particles of bricks were lying. In Para-12, he had stated that accused persons are claiming the land. In Para-14, he had stated that he is not knowing whether for the same occurrence, accused Prem Nath Rai has also lodged a case. In Para-15, he had denied the suggestion that Prem Nath Rai had also sustained injury during course of the aforesaid occurrence. In Para-17, he had stated that Aklu Rai is his Pattidar. Then had stated that while he was complaining to Aklu Rai, at that very time, Aklu Rai was empty hand and was standing in front of his darwaza. In Para-21, he had stated that while he was complaining, other accused came from his house. At that very time, he was alone. In Para-22, he had stated that Deep Narayan Rai and Prem Nath Rai were armed with farsa while Moti Lal Rai was armed with Bhala. In Para-23, he had stated that he moved backward seeing the accused persons armed with weapon. In Para-24, he had stated that at that very moment, Aklu Rai was armed with rod. In Para-25, he had stated that first of all, Deep Narayan Rai gave farsa blow over his head. He had given single blow. Then thereafter, Prem Nath Rai had given another farsa blow. Moti Lal Rai, who was armed with Bhala, did not strike. In Para-26, he had stated that after sustaining two farsa blows, he became injured, fell down. After falling, Aklu Rai had assaulted. After sustaining rod blow, he became unconscious. Then had said that
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
11
only one rod blow was given to him. In Para-28, he had stated that he is unable to disclose the names of villagers, who came at the spot after sustaining injury, because he became unconscious. In Para-29, he had stated that he regained sense on the next day. In Para-30, he had stated that he is unable to say whether blood had spread over ground or not and in likewise manner, whether police had seized the blood stained earth. In Para-31, he had stated that accused persons have not gone to hospital for getting themselves treated. Then had stated at Para-34 that he is not knowing whether Moti Lal Rai had instituted a case two years prior to this occurrence against his father bearing Case No.1404 of 2007. In Para-35, he had stated that to save their skin, accused persons have instituted a case. Then, there happens to be suggestion that they have illegally constructed the drain in the land of Aklu Rai, which was resisted by Aklu Rai and for that, they have assaulted Aklu Rai and his wife wherein other accused persons came in rescue, on account thereof, they have been implicated in this case. In Para-37, there happens to be cross-examination over genealogical table. In Para-41, he has shown the boundary of the P.O. as North-village road, South-his house, East-house of Aklu Rai, West-house of Jagarnath Rai. In Para-42, he had stated that while he was talking with Aklu Rai, during midst thereof, this occurrence has been committed. In Para-44, he had stated that seeing accused persons running to bring farsa even
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
12
then he remained at the place. At Para-48, he had stated that at the time when Aklu Rai assaulted over his back, he had seen the same. In Para-50, he had stated that at the time of occurrence, he was alone. In Para-51, he had stated that though partition has been effected with Aklu Rai, but not on paper. In Para-53, he had stated that Aklu Rai had a hut measuring four dhoors.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
13
darwaza of Aklu Rai and Shubh Narayan, which is the place of occurrence.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
14
house of Jagarnath Rai and Mahanth. Recorded statement of the witnesses, procured injury report and then thereafter, as he was transferred, so handed over the investigation to Officer-in-Charge, Sidhwalia. During cross-examination at Para-13, he had stated that P.O. was shown to him by Chandradeep Rai, Shivdayal Rai, who belonged to informant’s family. In Para-17, he had stated that he had not found the damaged drain, brick particles at the P.O. In Para-18, he had stated that he had not gone inside the house of the informant. In Para-19, he had stated that he had not seized the blood stain earth as it was not so visible.
15
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
been used, then in that event, prosecution has to specifically bring on record through the witness:-
“11. ……………………………………………………..We
should have thought that normally, when the witness says that an axe or a spear is used there is no warrant for supposing that what the witness means is that the blunt side of the Weapon was used. If that be the implication it is the duty of the prosecution to obtain a clarification from the witness as to whether a sharp-edged or a piercing .instrument was used as blunt weapon.”
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
16
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
17
been explained properly at least at the end of PW-1 as well as PW-4.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.506 of 2015 dt.03-05-2018
18
per evidence of doctor (PW-5), the injury was over the person of the PW-1, but in the background of the oral evidence is found full of ambiguity and for that, the ultimate beneficiary would be the accused persons.
(Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)
Vikash/-
| AFR/NAFR | A.F.R. |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N.A. |
| UploadingDate | 08.05.2018 |
| Transmission Date |
08.05.2018 |
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 326 IPC is sustainable given inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence regarding weapon and manner of injury.
Whether the prosecution established the motive and mode of occurrence sufficiently to uphold the finding of guilt.
Whether the evidence regarding the cause of injury substantiates the charge of voluntarily causing grievous hurt with a sharp weapon.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Baliraj Singh vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶35
Baliraj Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2017 (3) P.L.J.R. 10 (SC)
Solanki Chimanbhai UkaBhai vs. State of GujaratReferred¶37
Solanki Chimanbhai UkaBhai vs. State of Gujarat reported in A.I.R. 1983 SC 484 · Who else cites this
State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and anotherReferred¶39
State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and another reported in (1985) 4 SCC 302 · Who else cites this
Hallu and others vs. State of Madhya PradeshReferred¶76
Hallu and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (1974) 4 SCC 300 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Akalu Rai @ Aklu Rai
Moti Lal Rai
Prem Nath Rai
State of Bihar
Aditya Kumar Trivedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
