Sadanand Roy vs The State Of Bihar

Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State.

This appeal survives only with respect to above named Appellant Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5.

This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st, Rosera, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2001 in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000 whereby and whereunder appellants been convicted for committing offences under Sections 148, 323, 149, 325 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two years for committing offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months under Sections 323, 149 IPC and simple imprisonment for three years under Section 325 IPC with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment of three months. All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

The prosecution case, as disclosed in the fardbeyan of Kamlesh Roy, is that his father Ramashish Roy had purchased about four kathas of land situated near Bharadwaj College, Sakarpura, and was in peaceful possession thereof. On 07.07.2000 at about 8:00 A.M., when Ramashish Roy, Kamlesh Roy and Sanjay Roy reached the land with a tractor for ploughing, the accused persons along with 20-25 unknown persons, armed with lathis, bhala and farsa surrounded them. The prosecution specifically alleged that Sadanand Roy (appellant no. 1) assaulted Ramashish Roy with a farsa on his head. Shivshankar Roy assaulted him with lathi on the shoulder. Hareram Roy (appellant no. 3) assaulted him on the leg. Dayanand Roy (appellant no. 2) assaulted Sanjay Roy with a farsa. Suresh Roy (appellant no. 5) assaulted Sanjay Roy with lathi causing fracture. Hareram Roy (appellant no. 3) assaulted Kamlesh Roy with farsa and when Ram Binod Roy, Chandramauli Roy and Vijay Roy intervened, they were also assaulted. The accused persons damaged the tractor causing loss of about Rs. 50,000/- and removed its battery and also snatched a wrist watch.

In this case, on the basis of the fardbeyan, Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 64/2000 was instituted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 324, 325, 379 and 447 IPC and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet bearing C.S. No. 106 of 2000 dated 27.10.2000 was submitted under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 IPC. Thereafter, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 13.02.2001 and case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Samastipur. Accordingly, charges were framed under Sections 148, 149, 324, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all the accused persons. The accused persons were acquitted of the charge under Section 324 IPC and charge under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 323/149 IPC.

In this case, in order to bring home guilt of the accused persons, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Ram Binod Roy, P.W. 2, namely Sanjay Roy and P.W. 4, namely Ramashish Roy are the injured eye-witnesses of the occurrence. is the injured witness. P.W. 3, namely Kamlesh Roy, is the informant. P.W. 5, namely Vijay Roy is an independent relative witness who reached at the place of occurrence on hearing alarm. P.W. 6, namely Dr. J.P. Bhindwar is the Medical Office who proved the injury reports and admitted that none of the injuries were dangerous to life and he did not found any sharp-cut weapon injury with farsa, etc. P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are formal witnesses. The prosecution has also adduced documentary evidences, which are marked as:-

On the other hand, the defence has not produced any oral evidence.

After hearing the parties, the learned trial court convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in the opening paragraph of this order.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the order of conviction and sentence on multiple grounds. He contends that from no occurrence, as alleged, has ever taken place and the case arose out of a long standing land dispute between the parties. Case and counter case. There is absolutely no allegation of overt act against the appellants and P.W. 6 who is the doctor has not found any injury caused by sharp-cutting weapon. He further contends that in this case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence of the appellants as he was not able to contradict the evidence of the witnesses and the place and manner of occurrence could not be proved. It is further submitted that no blood-stained clothes or seized articles were produced, no defence or independent witnesses were examined and charges under Sections 324, 307 IPC could not be proved against the appellants. He contends that the trial court has wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material contradictions and hence, the impugned order of sentence and conviction is fit to be quashed and set aside on the basis of facts and circumstances.

On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has submitted that there is no need of any interference in this appeal since the prosecution witnesses have supported the corroborated the prosecution story and there is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is justified and legal.

On going through the rival submissions, evidences and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that in this case, during trial, the Investigating Officer has not been examined by the prosecution and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution either. Non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence as the defence could not explain the material discrepancy and contradict the witnesses. However, this Court finds that the evidences of witnesses are completely trustworthy and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence that it was these appellants who caused injury to the injured.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that ends of justice would be met if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants as they have already served sufficient time in custody.

Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction is upheld and the order of sentence dated 08.02.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1^st, Rosera, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 212 of 2001 in connection with Hasanpur P.S. Case No. 64 of 2000 is modified and the sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced that to the period they have already undergone.

In that view of the matter, above named appellant nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5 are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection with this case.

Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.

Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.