LexJAMUNA CHAUDHARI & ORS. versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
( •., i . r A B c D c II JAMUNA CHAUDHARI & ORS. v. STATE OF BIHAR December 1, 1973. 609 [M.H. BEG AND Y. V. CHA~DRACIIvD, JJ.] Cr~ininal mni-Dmy of fuvestigatinc of!icu in 1~ mauer of lnve ,. 1· p 1 Coil•-S<. 147 ami 149-B<'Ilt/il of tfoubt. s 1C0 <Ott- ena Til< party of the ~ccuscd and the oppo\ite party allcacd that the other party hod attacked t!><m wtth dea,<lly Wc:lpons when each of them was lawfully engaged in ~>Orkin thetr respective hclds. In the scumc some mem!>:rs on both side1 n:ctl\"<d injuri.:s. One member of the opposttc party died as a n:sult of the injuries. Although the pro>e-cution case was that only one incident rook ploce in a field on that doy no mention was made of the SC\-crc injury on the head of one of the men in rhe opposite party either io the First lnfonnation Report or <n the stntemeors of witnc:sscs. The F.l.R. did not contain any of the important events in the fight nor did the i~vcstigatin!l ol~r 1)1nke full cnquincs with reg;~rd to the fight bctwo:n rhe two partt<'S. The tmcsugaung otliccr had stated that, although he found in· juries on the person of one of the party of the accused, ~ct he had made no eoquirics from the witnesses as to how he had rccei,.cd those injurico. The rri•l court acquitt<d some of the accused, con\i<tcd the first appellant and stntencai him to imprisonment for life: nnd convktcd the othc~. for offcnco unJcr ss. 147 & 149. The High Court rcduo>l the sentence of the fil'>t appeU3nt to 5 ~cars, and th•t of other by half. In ~ppeal to this Court, HELD: Th~ duty of the (m·C$1i~"'tins Offiocr is not morely to bolster Ui> a p~o sccuuon Q.SC ~11h such c't·idt:nce 8.! ntay enable th~ Court to ~rd a_co.nvt.:uon but to brina out the real, unvarnished truth. In the tn<tont ca~ It lS app.uent thll the prosccut>on v. irncss<5 hod trkd to omit altogether anY. rclercnc: to atlelUt tile injurtes of Lhc tint al"pellanl txcuusc there w.u a cr'?u ~asc m wluch. such 3~ adm1s· •ion could ""'"' bc'Cn used to suppurl the pro,.,cullon m th3t cJ>e. A<_n~u:er t~ prosc:cuhon nor the defence hos come out wi~h the whole o"'-.l unvarn;11 ei~J ti~~(~ . w as to enable the Court to jud~:e when; the rJ8h':' •!'d wrong, uf the ." 0 ht<h dent or set of incidents lay or how one or more 1nc 1d~ncs too~ P~~~~~o 'decip~c~ IJ'Qoy persons Vt"Crc: injured, courtS c:1n only .t7. to l?u~s 1": J~1,/r~tric whctbl!r 3ny the trutb, if possible. This may "': doned~ 11 "n ·J'~~~ion from proved facts nn.J TCU003ble doubt cm~rgcs on uny pn1nt un \:r C?nsl ~.: circwustaocd of the case. [GISA·D; D·El . U good opportunity to observe (2) Whtrc so many \\ ltn~ who h.ul on <4.ll:l Y 1 11 h d onurtcd even men- "ha~ the lirSI uppc:llant did, did not invol\'\l hun~~~ ~~tac~ on the dcceas.:d, it. IJODU>g 1o0 pronmtcnt u feature of 1the1 ~~"t"t>':.t tho fattl injury to the dee<ascd could out be held beyond reasonab c '.0~ ·llant ond of no other pcnoo. The W:U aCiually caused by tho/utlt/ of th~ ·'"1 f~p< bt [616 fGI liflt appellant W'J! entitled to the b:n.·fit D ou · • ·ific acts of the accu,;cd who struck 13) The Injured witnesses \\bO have S.''"n 51!"" 1. r o<:euscd persons. TI1~ trial court them, could be relied upon to convict par''~-u i47 anJ 149 against th.:m w:u justi· has corrcxtly url'lied thu test ond th: use 0 • • fic.d.[bl8 BJ JURIS·otcrtoS : Criminnl Appe:ll No. 97 CRIMINAL Al'l'l· LI.AT~ or 1970 . th Judgm~nt and Order dated the Appeal by Special Leave fro 1 n~. •he Court in Criminal Appeal No. 2 21st January 1970 of the P:~tna •S • . . or 1967. ( I . ' 610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1974] 2 S.C.R. Nuruddin Ahmad. S. N. Singh and Gyan Sudha Misra, for the appellant. . R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. Thirty-one accused persons were sent up for trial before the Additional Sessions' Judge of Chapra on charges under Sections 147, 148, 323, · 325, 326, 302/34, 302/149, Indian Penal Code. The appellant Jamuna Chaudhary was also charged separately under section 302 Indian Penal Code. The prosecution case may be stated as follows : On 15-7-1965 at about 8 a.m. Dukhharan Koeri, P. W. 22, his brother Sitaram Bl1agat, P.W. 20, his sister-in-law Smt. Gulzaria, P. W. 12, were weeding plot No. 39, in village Rani Sariswam. Smt. Sujhani, P. W. 10, the mother of Dukhharan, P. W. 22, Smt. Minie, P. W. 14, and Dukhharan's niece Km. Ram Rati, P. W. 9, daughter
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.