Balmiki Singh Vs. Ram
Chander Singh & Ors  INSC 1587 (18 September 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.554-555 OF 2002
Balmiki Singh ...Appellant Versus Ram Chander Singh and Ors. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
appeals have been filed by the informant questioning the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the
respondents 1 & 2. Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the
offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short `IPC') and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years.
Additionally, respondents were convicted for offence punishable under Section 27
of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short `Arms Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 3
facts, in a nutshell, are as follows:
On 11.8.1992 at 7.00
a.m. the informant was going to see his transplanted paddy in the field and
when he reached near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree
armed with Garasa and country made rifle. The appellants began to abuse him,
which was protested by the informant.
Ramchandra ordered his son accused Shravan to fire and Sravan fired upon the
informant which hit his right chest. It has been stated that prior to this
occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in between the
informant and the accused persons on use of irrigational water. The informant
after sustaining injuries sat down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh
Medical Hospital where he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by the
S.I. of police. On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up.
After completion of
investigation charge sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the court of Sessions. Finally the trial concluded with the result
as indicated above.
The appellant pleaded
not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.
witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version of whom PWs. 1, 5
and 6 were stated to be the eye witnesses. But ultimately it was noted that
PWs. 1 and 5 were not eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily
rested on the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant. The Trial Court found
the evidence to be cogent and accordingly sentenced the accused persons.
appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution has not been able to
establish the accusations and directed acquittal. The informant has filed these
appeals questioning acquittal.
support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there
was no basis to discard the evidence of PW-6 and, therefore, the High Court
should not have directed acquittal.
the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy, we find that vital facts have
been noted by the High Court.
The incident is
supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.
The first information
report was lodged on 13.8.1992.
Strangely, the doctor
(PW-7) stated that on the basis of requisition received from the police, he had
examined the informant on 11.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m.
counsel for the appellant tried to explain that the fard beyan was recorded on
11.8.1992. Even if that be so, it is not explained as to why the first
information report was recorded on 13.8.1992. In fact, the first information
report shows that the fard beyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs. and the first
information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130 am. The occurrence
according to first information report took place at 7.00 a.m. on 11.8.1992.
Additionally, the report reached Court on 14.8.1992. The IO was not examined
who could have explained the delay in registering the FIR and dispatching the
same to the Court and no reason was indicated as to why he was not examined.
Additionally, evidence of PW-6 is also contrary to the medical evidence in a
sense that according to him there was one shot. But there were three injuries.
The High Court noted that there was no explanation for the third injury. Even
doctor's evidence shows that the two injuries cannot be treated as an entry and
exit rooms. According to PW-6 the first information report was recorded through
Jamin Khan at the medical college. If that be so, there was no reason as to why
the first information came to be lodged after two days.
view of the aforesaid discrepancies highlighted by the High Court, we find no
reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal recorded.
appeals are dismissed.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)