2005 (1) TMI 756

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der of the High Court of judicature at Patna dated 25th February, 1999 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 513 & 515 of 1986. 2. There were 10 appellants before the High Court and those ten appellants have preferred these 4 appeals before us. Out of them, three have since died namely, Tribeni Ahir, Ramshish Ahir and Surajdev Dubey. 3. The appellants were tried by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 69/77. By judgment and order dated 30th September, 1986 the trial court found them guilty and convicted them of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment. What is of significance is the fact that appellants Tribeni Ahir (since deceased), Dhorha Ahir, Nand Kumar Ahir and J....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as assaulted by Sheoji Ahir, Moti Ahir and Teja Ahir while Ramta Singh PW-7 (the informant) was assaulted by Nand Kumar Ahir. Similarly, Rangnath Singh PW-4 was assaulted by Lakshman Ahir. On alarm being raised, Karu Kurmi PW-3 Sheo Bilash Singh PW-5 and some others arrived at the spot and witness the occurrence. The assailants fled away. The injured including the deceased were first brought to Salempur Chatti and thereafter to the sadar hospital at Arrah. The deceased was declared dead while the other injured witnesses were treated at the same hospital. The first information report lodged by Ramta Singh PW-7 was recorded by Sub-Inspector R.B. Singh (since dead) at the Arrah Mufassil police station at 11.00 A.M. on the same day. The case wa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce and can be relied upon for convicting the appellants. The medical evidence on record corroborates the case of the prosecution. In view of the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the courts below, which we find to be based on evidence on record, it is riot, necessary for us to consider the facts of the case in detail. We shall, however, notice the submissions urged before us. 8. It was firstly submitted that this case was in the nature of a counter blast to the case lodged by the members of the defence party. It was submitted before us that at 6.00 A.M. on the same day the members of the prosecution party had attempted to loot away harvested crop of Tribeni Ahir and Ramashis Ahir, who were also assaulted in the course of that incid....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....were injured. There were, therefore, two different occurrences and it, therefore, cannot be suggested that Tribeni Ahir and Ramashis Ahir were injured in the course of the same incident and that the prosecution has failed to explain their injuries. The submission proceeds with fallacious assumption that the two of the appellants were injured in the course of the same incident. 10. It is worth noticing that in the report lodged by Tribeni Ahir, there is no mention of the fact that the assailants were also injured, and one of them died of the injuries sustained by him. 11. It was then urged that the place of occurrence has been shifted by the prosecution. We have perused the evidence on record and we find that there is no substance in t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....itnesses which has not been impeached in their cross-examination. 12. It was then submitted that in spite of the fact that large number of persons had assembled at the bank of the river at the time of occurrence, the witnesses examined are only those who are members of the family of the deceased, or in some manner connected with him. We cannot lose sight of the fact that four of such witnesses are injured witnesses and, therefore, in the absence of strong reasons, we cannot discard their testimony. The fact that they are related to the deceased is the reason why they were attacked by the appellants. Moreover, in such situations though many people may have seen the occurrence, it may not be possible for the prosecution to examine each one....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on. Appellant Nagarjit Ahir is the son of Lakshman Ahir. The prosecution has not alleged any overt act against Nagarjit Ahir. The evidence on record establishes the fact that large number of persons were present. In such a case, it may be safe to convict only those persons against whom overt act is alleged with the aid of Section 149 IPC, lest some innocent spectators may get involved. This is only a rule of caution and not a rule of law. In the instant case, we find that even if Nagarjit Ahir was present when the occurrence took place, there is nothing to suggest that he shared the common object of the unlawful assembly. Admittedly, he did not take any part in the assault. We do not, therefore, consider it safe to convict him merely on the....