Rajeshwar Singh S/O Late Laxami Singh and ors Vs the State of Bihar - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1.it has been submitted that the appellant no. 1 is dead for which a death certificate is being presented before this court. let the same be kept on record. in view of the submission, the appeal of appellant no. 1 stands abated.2.the appellant no. 2 has been convicted under section 323 i.p.c. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the learned ist additional sessions judge, saran at chapra in sessions trial no. 421 of 1988 by the judgment dated 14.7.1995.3.the case of the prosecution is that on 11.7.1978 while the informant was keeping the bamboo sticks on his land the accused persons came there and variously assaulted him when others came to intervene they were also assaulted.4.the case of the defence was that the informant and the appellant no.1 were brothers and in fact the mother of the appellant no.1 had filed a case against her husband and the informant for having forcibly taken a signature on sale deed and when she protested she was assaulted for which first information report was filed which is exhibit-a and also the judgment on the same was delivered vide exhibit-c.5.during trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of whom p.w. 1 is the informant's brother whereas p.w. 2 is the informant, p.w. 3 is the informant's father, p.w. 4 is the doctor who examined the injured, p.w. has declared hostile, p.w.6 is formal and p.w. 7 is the investigating officer.6.on going through the evidence of p.w. 4, i find that apart from one injury on the person of lalan singh the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. the grievous injury is attributed to appellant no.1, similarly on the person of ram kishun singh only one grievous injury was found whereas the rest were simple, on the person of vijay singh one simple injury was found. 7.even considering the prosecution case in its entirety, it would be difficult to accept the same as having proved beyond all reasonable doubt in the background of claim and counter claim between the parties. 8.in the result, the appeal of appellant no. 2 is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant no.2 by the learned ist additional sessions judge, saran at chapra in sessions trial no. 421 of 1988 by the judgment dated 14.7.1995 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of his charges. the appellant no. 2 is discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.

Judgment:
1.It has been submitted that the appellant no. 1 is dead for which a death certificate is being presented before this court. Let the same be kept on record. In view of the submission, the appeal of appellant no. 1 stands abated.

2.The appellant no. 2 has been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 421 of 1988 by the judgment dated 14.7.1995.

3.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.7.1978 while the informant was keeping the Bamboo sticks on his land the accused persons came there and variously assaulted him when others came to intervene they were also assaulted.

4.The case of the defence was that the informant and the appellant no.1 were brothers and in fact the mother of the appellant no.1 had filed a case against her husband and the informant for having forcibly taken a signature on sale deed and when she protested she was assaulted for which First Information Report was filed which is exhibit-A and also the judgment on the same was delivered vide exhibit-C.

5.During trial the prosecution examined 7 witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is the informant's brother whereas P.W. 2 is the informant, P.W. 3 is the informant's father, P.W. 4 is the doctor who examined the injured, P.W. has declared hostile, P.W.6 is formal and P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer.

6.On going through the evidence of P.W. 4, I find that apart from one injury on the person of Lalan Singh the rest of the injuries were simple in nature. The grievous injury is attributed to appellant no.1, similarly on the person of Ram Kishun Singh only one grievous injury was found whereas the rest were simple, on the person of Vijay Singh one simple injury was found.

7.Even considering the prosecution case in its entirety, it would be difficult to accept the same as having proved beyond all reasonable doubt in the background of claim and counter claim between the parties.

8.In the result, the appeal of appellant no. 2 is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant no.2 by the learned Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 421 of 1988 by the judgment dated 14.7.1995 is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of his charges. The appellant no. 2 is discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.