Patna High Court – Orders
Putul Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 23 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Kumar
Bench: Sandeep Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1376 of 2019
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-137 Year-1999 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur
======================================================
1. Putul Devi W/O Bhikho Yadav R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur
2. Meena Devi D/O Bhikho Yadav R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur
3. Mofil Yadav S/O Bhikho Yadav R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur
4. Anil Yadav S/O Bhikho Yadav R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur
5. Lucho Yadav S/O Bhikho Yadav R/O Village- Chaudharidih, P.S.- Lodipur,
District- Bhagalpur
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Syed Ashfaque Ahmad, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
ORAL ORDER
7 23-01-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned APP for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the
appellants for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 08.03.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur passed in Sessions Trial
No. 1085 of 2004/ Trial No. 147 of 2017 arising out of Sabour
P.S. Case No. 137 of 1999 by which the Court below held the
appellants guilty under Sections 147, 148, 323, 341, 448 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
2/9
Indian Penal Code and they all were convicted and sentenced for
1 year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and on failure to pay
the fine, further one month in addition of original sentence. The
appellant no. 05/Lucho Yadav further held guilty of the offence
under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo 2 years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of
payment of fine, 3 months S.I. in addition to original sentence.
3. As per the prosecution case, the victim/Rudo Devi
was getting palm leaf cut and in the meantime, the appellants
namely Anil Yadav, Lucho Yadav, Mofil Yadav Meena Devi, and
Putul Devi came near the tree and Anil Yadav raised objection
about cutting of palm leaf and claimed over the palm tree and
thereupon the victim/Rudo Devi claimed the tree and asked
them about the reason of objection. Thereupon, Anil Yadav
abused her and ordered to kill her. On this, Putul Devi caught
her waist and Meena Devi caught her right hand and Lucho
Yadav assaulted her over her neck with sickle and the assault
was stopped by her left hand which caused cutting of her wrist
and when her husband came to rescue her, he was also assaulted
by Putul Devi, Anil Yadav and Mofil Yadav with Lathi.
4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellants that after institution of the F.I.R, the police started
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
3/9
investigation and recorded statements of witnesses and after
completion of investigation, submitted the charge sheet Under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 341, 448, 323 and 504 of the Indian
Penal Code and accordingly the cognizance was taken under
Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 448, 323, 504, 307 of the Indian
Penal Code.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted
that as a matter of fact no such occurrence was ever happened,
rather the fact is that the informant/prosecutrix without having
any right and title over the palm tree, tried to cut the leaf by
engaging some persons which were objected by the appellants
and in course of hot talk, the person climbed on the tree,
accidentally his sickle slipped from his hand and fell down on
the prosecutrix and she sustained injury on her hand, but since
there was litigation going on between the parties for land dispute
over claiming some lands including the said palm tree in
question, the prosecutrix lodged this false case against all the
accused persons (appellants).
6. 5 prosecution witnesses were examined in this case
by the prosecution which are:-
(I). P.W.1- Thakur Yadav (husband of
the Informant / prosecutrix);
(ii). P.W.2-Balram Yadav (the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
4/9brother of Informant / prosecutrix);
(iii). P.W.3- Rudo Devi (Informant/
Prosecutrix);
(iv). P.W.4- Hardayal Yadav
(declared hostile);
(v). P.W.5-Nirmal Kumar (the I.O of
the case);
7. The defense also examined its Defense Witness i.e.,
D.W-1/Sushil Yadav.
8. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the prosecution had not exhibited any documents
including the F.I.R or charge sheet. The injury report was also
not brought on record and exhibited in this case. The
prosecution failed to examine the witness named in the FIR.
After closing the evidences, statements of the accused
/appellants were recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which
the appellants denied the charges from the evidence of
prosecution and claimed to be innocent. During trial, the
independent witness/P.W.4/Hardayal Yadav has not supported
the prosecution case and was declared hostile. During
examination, P.W.3/Informant/prosecutrix also failed to
establish the injury received by her in the manner for want of
any medical evidence when she claimed that she got treatment
from two government hospital. The prosecution witnesses given
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
5/9
contradictory statements and not supported the prosecution
version and from their evidence, it is not established that they
are eyewitness to the occurrence. Neither the Doctor who treated
the informant was examined nor any injury report was brought
on record and exhibited in this case.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants further
submitted that the defense also examined one witness but the
learned trial court not given emphasis on the evidence. After
hearing the parties and perusal of the record, the Court below
convicted the appellants under Section 147/148/341/448/323 of
the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced them One
Years R.I under the aforesaid sections and a fine of Rs 1000/-
each and in default One month’s simple imprisonment in
addition and accused Lucho Yadav apart from the aforesaid
sentence is also separately held guilty under section 324 of I.P.C
and he is sentenced 2 years R.I with fine of Rs 2000/- and in
default 2 months simple imprisonment in addition to that
sentences have been passed.
10. Learned APP for the State has vehemently
opposed the prayer of the appellants and has supported the
impugned judgment by submitting that the appellants have
rightly been convicted by the impugned order.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
6/9
11. I have considered the submissions of the parties
and have gone through the records of the case.
12. P.W-3/Rudo Devi is the victim of the case who
said to have sustained injuries by a sharp-edged weapon and is
said to have been examined at Bhagalpur Medical College and
Patna Medical College, but the prosecution has not been able to
prove the injury report. In fact the prosecution has not even
produced the injury report. The weapon, which has been used by
the accused persons has also not been seized and produced by
the IO of the case but the witnesses have said that it is Lucho
Yadav/Appellant No. 05 who had assaulted the victim/Rudo
Devi with a sharp-edged weapon and caused injury. Other
witnesses have also supported the fact of Lucho Yadav having
caused the injury with sharp-edged weapon.
13. So far as the other accused-appellants are
concerned i.e., Appellant No. 01/Putul Devi, Appellant No.
02/Meena Devi, Appellant No. 03/Mofil Yadav and Appellant
No. 04/Anil Yadav, P.W-1/Thakur Yadav says that Putul Devi
and Meena Devi had caught Rudo Devi/victim and thereafter
Lucho Yadav assaulted her with sickle.
14. P.W-2/Balram Yadav says that on the orders of
Anil Yadav, P.W-3/Rudo Devi was caught by Putul Devi and
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
7/9
Meena Devi, and they assaulted the P.W-3/Rudo Devi with slaps
and thereafter, P.W-3/Rudo Devi was assaulted by Lucho Yadav
by sickle.
15. P.W-3/Rudo Yadav/the victim has again said that
Anil Yadav was the order giver and on the instruction of Anil
Yadav, Putul Devi and Meena Devi caught her and Lucho Yadav
assaulted her with sharp-edged weapon and all the accused
persons assaulted her husband also.
16. P.W-4/Hardayal Yadav has turned hostile.
17. P.W-5/Nirmal Kumar is the IO of the case. In his
evidence, he has not said anything about recording the statement
of the witnesses.
18. Considering the fact that the witnesses including
the injured witness i.e., P.W-3/Rudo Devi are consistent in the
deposition that Lucho Yadav has assaulted the victim/P.W-3 with
a sharp-edged weapon and the fact that the injury report has not
been produced and proved by the prosecution and also the fact
that the weapon was never seized by the IO of the case, I am of
the view that the assault by Lucho Yadav upon P.W-3/Rudo
Yadav is proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In absence of injury report, the appellant Lucho
Yadav is convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
8/9
and is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and is directed to
pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. In default of payment of fine, the
appellant Lucho Yadav will undergo S.I. for one month. Both
the sentences shall be consecutive.
20. So far as the other appellants i.e., Appellant No.
01/Putul Devi, Appellant No. 02/Meena Devi, Appellant No.
03/Mofil Yadav and Appellant No. 04/Anil Yadav are concerned,
the witnesses have not been consistent with regard to role of the
appellants and there is no allegation of any overt act against
them, and it appears that their participation in the crime may not
be there.
21. In view of the discussions above, the appeal is
partly allowed.
22. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 08.03.2019 passed by learned 7th Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur passed in Sessions Trial
No. 1085 of 2004/ Trial No. 147 of 2017 arising out of Sabour
P.S. Case No. 137 of 1999 against the Appellant No. 01/Putul
Devi, Appellant No. 02/Meena Devi, Appellant No. 03/Mofil
Yadav and Appellant No. 04/Anil Yadav is hereby set aside.
23. The Appellant No. 01/Putul Devi, Appellant No.
02/Meena Devi, Appellant No. 03/Mofil Yadav and Appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.1376 of 2019(7) dt.23-01-2025
9/9
No. 04/Anil Yadav are acquitted of all charges levelled against
them.
24. The Appellant no. 05/Lucho Yadav will serve his
sentence.
25. Let the LCR be sent back to the concerned Court
below forthwith.
26. Interlocutory application/s, if any, shall also stand
disposed of accordingly.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
Shishir/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link