http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: JAMUNA CHAUDHARI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/12/1973

BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH BENCH: BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.

CITATION:  1974 AIR 1822            1974 SCR  (2) 609  1974 SCC  (3) 774  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1991 SC1260  (40)

ACT: Criminal  trial-Duty of investigating officer in the  matter of  investigation-Penal  Code-Ss.  147  and  149-Benefit  of doubt.

HEADNOTE: The party of the accused and the opposite party alleged that the  other party had attacked them with deadly weapons  when each  of  them  was  lawfully  engaged  in  work  in   their respective  fields.   In the scuffle some  members  on  both sides received injuries.  One member of the opposite  party died as a result of the injuries. Although  the  prosecution case was that only  one  incident took place in a field on that day no mention was made of the severe injury on the head of one of the men in the  opposite party  either  in  the First Information Report  or  in  the statements of witnesses.  The F.I.R. did not contain any  of the important events in the fight nor did the  investigating officer make full enquiries with regard to the fight between the two parties.  The investigating officer had stated that, although he found injuries on the person of one of the party of  the  accused,  yet he had made  no  enquiries  from  the witnesses as to how he had received these injuries. The trial court acquitted some of the accused, convicted the first  appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for  life and  convicted the others for offenses under ss. 147 &  149. The  High Court reduced the sentence of the first  appellant to 5 years, and that of other by half. In appeal to this Court, HELD:     The  duty  of  the Investigating  Officer  is  not merely  to bolster up a prosecution case with such  evidence as may enable the Court to record a conviction but to  bring out the real, unvarnished truth.  In the instant case, it is apparent  that the prosecution witnesses had tried  to  omit altogether  any. reference to at least the injuries  of  the first appellant because there was a cross case in which such an admission could have been used to support the prosecution in  that case.  As neither the prosecution nor  the  defence has come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as  to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

whole  incident or set of incidents lay or how one  or  more incidents took place in which so many persons were  injured, courts  can only try to guess or conjecture to decipher  the truth,  if  possible.   This may be done  within  limits  to determine whether any reasonable doubt emerges on any  point under  consideration from proved facts and circumstances  of the case. [615A-B; D-E] (2)Where   so  many  witnesses  who  had  an  equally   good opportunity to observe what the first appellant did, did not involve  him  at  all and had  omitted  even  mentioning  so prominent  a  feature of the occurrence as  attack  on  the deceased, it could not be held beyond reasonable doubt  that the fatal injury to the deceased was actually caused by  the lath  of  the first appellant and of no other  person.   The first  appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.  [616 FG] (3)The injured witnesses who have given specific acts of the accused  who  struck them, could be relied upon  to  convict particular  accused persons.  The trial court has  correctly applied  this  test and the use of ss. 147 and  149  against them was justified. [618 B]

JUDGMENT: CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 97  of 1970. Appeal  by Special Leave from the Judgment and  Order  dated the  21st January 1970 of the Patna High Court  in  Criminal Appeal No. 2 ,of 1967. 610 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 Bhagat, 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 of Sitaram, were also present there.  A crowd of 80  to 85 persons from various villages, armed with  Lathis, Bhalas, and Pharsas suddenly appeared and started  attacking the unoffending Dukhharan and his relations in field No. 39. Names of 25 persons, including the appellants, are mentioned in  the  First information Report lodged at  Police  Station Mirgan.  in District Saran, at 2.15 p. m. on 15-7-1965.   In his evidence Dukhharan stated that he ran away to a distance of  2 to 3 bighas to the south but returned to the scene  of occurrence when the accused had dispersed and then he  found a  number  of other persons lying injured.   They  were  his brother  Sitaram,  P. W. 20, Tapi Bhagat, P.  W.  3,  Nagina Koeri,  P. W. 13, Smt.  Fekani, P. W. 17, and  Laldhari  who was lying unconscious and who )never regained consciousness. Injuries,  proved by Dr. B.N. Dwivedy, P.W. 4, who  examined the  injured on 15-7-65 between 4-45 p.m. and 7  p.m.  were: Two  scratches and 4 Ecchymoses, all simple  injuries,  with some   blunt  weapon  were  sustained  by  Dukhharan.    Two Ecchymoses, simple injuries, with a blunt weapon were’ found

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

on  Fegn  Bhagat.  Two Ecchymoses, simple  injuries  with  a blunt weapon were found on Smt.  Hirachia.  Smt.  Phekan had one  Ecchymoses, a simple injury with a hard weapon  Sitaram P.W.  20, had a lacerated wound 4" x 1/2" on the  head,  two punctured  wounds 1/2" x 1/4" x 1/2" one on the  left  elbow and another on the nose, a swelling on the left forearm with compound fracture, a lacerated wound and two red Ecchymoses. Two  of  these injuries were grievous and the  rest  simple. Two were caused by some sharp weapon and the rest by a blunt weapon.   Tapi  Bhagat,  P.W.  3,  had  a  scratch,  a   red Ecchymosis and a swelling on right arm, a compound  fracture and a lacerated wound, all caused by a blunt weapon.  One of these  injuries  was grievous.  Ram Nagina had  a  lacerated wound,  3  red  Ecchymoses  on the  back,  and  two  on  the buttocks, a punctured wound on the lower jaw and another  on the right of the thumb, two of these injuries were caused by a  sharp  weapon,  and the rest by  a  blunt  weapon.   Smt. Sonjharia  wife of Ram Gobind Bhagat, had a swelling on  the right  arm, with a simple fracture, a swelling of  the  left middle  finger with a fracture and an Ecchymosis.   Two  of these were grievous injuries.  Birjhan Bhagat, P.W. 15,  had a  punctured wound, a simple injury caused by a  penetrating weapon.  Smt.  Lachminia, P.W. 11,                             611 had a swelling of the right arm with a simple fracture and a lacerated  wound.  The first of these was grievous  and  the other  simple.  Km.  Ram Rati, P.W. 9, had an incised  wound 2"  x  1/2"  x 1/2" caused by a sharp  edged  weapon.   Smt. Matia,  wife of Ram Nagina Bhagat, had three red  Ecchymoses which were simple injuries.  Smt.  Sonjaria wife of Sita Ram had  a swelling and two Ecchymoses.  Laldhari  Bhagat-,  who had become unconscious and died subsequently had a punctured wound 1/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" on the right thigh, a swelling 3" x 2" on the left temporal region of the head, and a scratch 1" x  1"’  on  the right elbow.  The first was  by  a  piercing weapon  like a Bhala and the second, which was serious,  was with  a  lathi.  Dr. Mehta examined as Court witness  No.  1 proved  the following injuries on Ramanadan Chaudhary  which he examined on 15-7-65 at 11 a.m.               1.    One penetrating wound 1/2" (?) x 1/4"  x               2"  on the right side of the chest in  between               the mid line and napple.               2.    Left   little  and  left  ring   finger,               chopped off except that they were hanging with               a thin skin with the hand.               3.    One incised wound 1" x 1/4" x skin deep,               on the back of right middle finger.               4.    One  incised wound 1" x 1/3" x  1/2"  on               the back of the right index finger.               5.    One incised wound, 1-1/4" x 1/4" x  1/4"               on the front of right thumb.               Injury  No.  2 , was of  grievous  nature  and               other of simple nature.               Injury No. 1, caused by sharp pointing  weapon               such as Bhala and other by sharp cutting  such               as pharas (?)". All  the in juries mentioned above were shown to  have  been caused  within  12 hours of their examination so  that  they could be caused on the morning of 15-7-65. The  accused  did not produce any witness in  defence.   The statement of Ramanandan Chaudhary under Section 342 Criminal Procedure  Code  setting  out  the  defence  version  was  : Ramanandan  and some others had purchased some  Shikmi  land from  Nathuni Dube and had grown Makai on it.  When  he  was ploughing one of the purchased plots numbered 30, at about 8

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

a.m.  on 15-7-65, Dukhharan, Sitaram, Birjan  Nagina,  Inder Sain,  Tapi  Bhagat  came there and  protested  against  the ploughing.  As Ramanandan did not pay any attention to their protests,  Dukhharan and Sitaram attacked him with  Pharasas so that he fell down and became unconscious.  A Marpit  took place after Ramanandan had fallen down.  The suggestion  was that the party of Dukhharan itself had attacked a number  of persons who were injured.  Ramanandan also filed a sale deed dated 30-8-1920 showing that he had purchased plots No.  24, 30, and 31. The  Trial  Court had discarded the defence  version  as  it found  that the marks of trampling of the crop were  present in field No. 19.  It bad also held that an attempt had  been made  to show that the occurrence had really taken place  in plot  No. 30, by some irregular marks. made by ploughing  up portions of field No. 30 so as to create evidence, 612 of  some incident there.  Its view was that as  seven  women had  been injured, it could not be believed  that  Dukhharan and  Sitaram and others had gone to the field of  Ramanandan to  cause  injuries.  Its finding definitely  was  that  the occurrence took place in plot No. 39. It also observed  that the sale deed relied upon by the defence was too old to op.- rate  as a motive for an incident on field No. 30,  but,  it found  that  there  was  a dispute over  Shikmi  land  at  a distance  of 165 steps from the plot No. 39.   According  to the prosecution case, the only incident on that day in  this village occurred in field No. 39.  The Trial Court’s finding that  the cause of this incident was a dispute  over  Shikmi land  nearby  was  based  on  admissions  of  a  number   of prosecution  witnesses: Phagu Bhagat, P.W. 1; Ramjit  Singh, P.W.  5, Sheodhari Bhagat, P.W. 7; Birjhan Bhagat, P.W.  15; Sitaram Bhagat, P.W. 20; Dukhharan Koeri, P.W. 22. A  very extraordinary feature of the case is that  although, according  to the prosecution case, only one  incident  took place  at about 8 a. m. in the morning in the field  No.  39 belonging to Dukhharan, over which no accused person had any claim  whatsoever,  yet, no mention was made of  the  severe injury  on the head of Laldhari which made him  unconscious, either  in the First Information Report shown to  have  been lodged at 9.30 a. m. when the S. 1. Radheyshyam Gupta, P. W. 23, went to the spot or in the statements of more than three out  of  sixteen  alleged eye witnesses.   These  three  eye witnesses  were : Sheodhari Bhagat, P. W. 7, whose field  is to the west of the field in which Dukhharan is said to  have been  weeding, Birjhan Bhagat, P. W. 15, whose field  is  to the  north of Dukhharan’s field, and Sitaram Bhagat,  P.  W. 20,  the  brother of Dukhharan who was said to  be  actually weeding with Dukhharan in the same field.  The other 13  eye witnesses, namely, Phagu Bhagat, P. W. I., Tappi Bhagat,  P. W. 3, Ramjit Shah, P. W. 5 Ram Chandra Sharma, P. W. 8,  Km. Ram Rati, P. W. 9, Smt.  Sujhani, P. W. IO, Smt.   Lachminia Devi,  P. W. II, Smt.  Gulzaria, P. W. 12, Nagina Koeri,  P. W.  13, Smt.  Minia, P. W. 14, Smt.  Vekani, P. W. 17,  Smt. Marchhia, P. W. 19, and Dukhharan, P. W. 22, make no mention whatsoever of any incident involving the coming of  Laldhari to  the  scene  of occurrence or any attack  upon  him.   D- ukhharan,  P.  W.  22, who was in his  own  field  with  his brother  Sitaram, had stated that he had run away  and  come back to the field where he found Laldhari lying unconscious. But,  he did not mention even this fact in the F. I.  R.  to the Investigating Officer when he came to the spot.  By that time  he was bound to have seen Laldhari  lying  unconscious just as his brother Sitaram saw it if he could be  believed. The  omission  from  the F. I. R. made  by  Dukhharan,  was,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

however,  not put to him.  Nevertheless, the fact  that  the incident  was omitted and no- mention is made whatsoever  of the injury of Laldhari by thirteen alleged eye witnesses  is significant  in judging whether Laldhari was injured  during the incident on the field of Dukhharan for which the F.I. R. was  lodged  or  in some  other  probably  not  disconnected incident.   It is very surprising that so many  as  thirteen eye  witnesses who, according to their own statements,  were present  at  the  scene  for  the  whole  duration  of   the occurrence had not even mentioned the injury to Laldhari  if the whole occurrence was really 613 one  and had taken place in plot No. 39.  And, even  out  of the  three  who mention it, only Birjhan  Bhagat  says  that Laldhari  was  attacked  simply because he  came  there  and forbade  the  assailants  from committing  an  assault  This reason  for the alleged attack on him also does  not  appear very  convincing  as there were,  according  to  prosecution witnesses, several people objecting to any marpit. It  is true that the evidence of Dr. Dwivedy shows  that  as many  as fourteen persons, including Laldhari, were  injured as  set  out  above.   But,  the  First  Information  Report mentions  injuries  only  on  seven  persons  as   mentioned earlier.  An examination of the evidence of the  prosecution witnesses  reveals  that practically all of them  said  that Rajdhari  assaulted Dukhharan with a lathi which struck  his left  hand,  Ramayan  attacked  Dukhharan  with  a   Khoncha directed  at his chest, and Muni appellant used his  Khoncha to inflict an injury on the head of Dukhharan.  Beyond that, each  witness appears to have noticed only those who  struck him  if  the witness sustained an injury at all.   Km.   Ram Rati, a child of 8 years, could only state that Ram Nath had assaulted her with a Pharsa on her left leg.   Nevertheless, the  witnesses  were prepared to say, in  the  witness  box, without  identifying the accused individually, that all  the accused  were among the 80 to 85 persons who came to  attack Dukhharan  and the members of his family,  including  women, without  any  apparent  rhyme or reason,  as  there  was  no dispute, even according to the prosecution case, with regard to  plot  No.  39.   That plot was admitted  to  be  in  the possession  of  Dukhharan.  only Dukhharan,  among  all  the alleged eye witnesses identified the accused individually at the  trial.   And, the grievance which was set up  was  with regard  to  some Shikmi land with which the members  of  the alleged mob from several villages were not shown to have had any  concern. it is not shown what possible  interest  these other individuals, who are said to be the members of a mob, could conceivably have had in the dispute between  Dukhharan and  some of the accused persons so as to collie and  attack the unoffending Dukhharan and members of his family  without any apparent reason. Dukhharan  had  stated that. he and his father used  to  pay rent of Shikmi land to Tapesar Dubey and Dhanraj Dubey.   He admitted  that Raghubir Chaudhary and the  accused  Rajdhari and Jamuna had a sale deed executed in respect of the  above mentioned Shikmi land and that they had asked him to give up possession of the Shikmi land to which he did not agree.  He also  admitted  that this was the cause of  the  ill-feeling between  him  and the two accused Rajdhari and  Jamuna.   He also  stated  that he had filed an  application  before  the Block  Development  Officer,  Nathwa,  for  granting  him  a receipt  in respect of the rent of the Shikmi land, but  his request  was  turned down.  Furthermore,  he  admitted  that proceedings  under Section 145 Criminal Procedure  Code  had taken place between the parties over this land.  Thus,  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Shikmi  land  was the cause of  dispute  between  Dukhharan, Rajdhari,  and Jamuna, accused, in which the  other  accused persons could not have any real interest. It  appears  to  us that Radheyshyam Gupta, P.  W.  23,  the Investigating  Officer had not been sufficiently careful  or astute in investigating 614 the  extent  of  truth which could or  did  lie  behind  the defence  version.  He had, however, stated that the  defence version was given to him as soon as he met Ramanandan at the Hospital after the occurrence.  He said               "Ramanand had stated in his fardbeyan that  he               had  taken two Bighas of land under sale  deed               from  Nathuni Dubey.  He also said  this  that               while  he  was  getting  that  land  ploughed,               accused  persons came and asked to unyoke  the               plough,  and on refusal Dukhharan and  Sitaram               assaulted  him  with farsa  and  Nagina  dealt               bhala  blow  on  his chest and  on  the  hulla               raised  by  him  they fled  away.He  had  made               Lalchand  Bhagat, Chandrika Bhagat  and  Gudar               Ahir  as  his witnesses.  I  had  taken  their               statement  and they are also witnesses in  the               chargesheet.               He  had stated the time of occurrence at 8  a.               m. and I took his statement at 10. 30 p. m. in               the hospital". The  Investigating Officer had stated that he did  not  find any marks of blood either in plot No. 39 or in plot No.  30. He also said that he did not find foot prints in plot No. 30 which  is at a distance of 165 steps north east of plot  No. 39.   It  is true that he had stated that he found  2  or  3 gathas of maize (makai) crops trampled upon in the north  of field  No.  39.   He also deposed that he  found  "marks  of trampling  towards the north of the field".  About plot  No. 30  where, according to the defence version, the  occurrence had taken place, he said               "I found maize crops sown in plot No. 30 which               were  4"-5 inches high.  I found  it  ploughed               not   properly.   At  places  space  is   left               un-ploughed  in  between  one  jote  (ploughed               strip of land) and another.               This  field  appears  to  be  ploughed  in  an               improper way and I found its north west corner               not  ploughed.   The  field  appeared  to   be               freshly ploughed again." He  also stated : "I found plot No. 30 in the possession  of Dukhharan.   I  was  shown papers also  in  connection  with Shikmi  land".  The Investigating Officer had  stated  that, although  he found injuries on the person of Ramanandan,  he had  made  no  enquiries from the witnesses as  to  how  the appellant  Ramanandan  had  received  these  injuries.   His statement  shows that he had sent Jamuna also for an  injury report  so  that this accused too must  have  been  injured. Furthermore,  he had stated : "I did not even  enquire  from the  witnesses  of  this  case about  the  foot  prints  and trampling found in the Shikmi land".  It is thus clear  that the  prosecution  had not placed the whole set  of  relevant facts before the Court.  The accused, not infrequently,  try to  conceal  their  injuries in such cases  as  they  become evidence of involvement in an incident. 615 The  duty  of the Investigating Officers is  not  merely  to bolster  up  a prosecution case with such  evidence  as  may enable the Court to record a conviction but to bring out the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

real unvarnished truth.  It is apparent that the prosecution witnesses  had tried to omit altogether any reference to  at least the injuries of the appellant Ramanandan because there was a cross case in which such an admission could have  been made  use  ofto  support  the  prosecution  in  that   case. Dukhharan,  however,  made  a  very  feeble  and   obviously untruthful attempt to account for the injuries of Ramanandan by  saying  that he had snatched a pharsa from one  of’  the members of the crowd and had started swinging it around.  He could  not, however, state whether any one was in  jured  by it.  He even, stated that he did not recognise the man  from whom  he had snatched the pharsa.  Although he said that  he knew  Ramanandan  from  his. childhood,  he  could  not  say whether  all  his  fingers  were  present  on  the  day   of occurrence.   It was apparent that be was trying to  conceal some  occurrence over the Shikmi land that morning in  which the  fingers of’ Ramanandan were chopped off.   He  admitted that  there  was  a dispute between  Raghubir,  Jamuna,  and Rajdhari  which  had lasted 21/2 to3 years over  the  Shikmi land.  In fact, this dispute was given as the only cause  of the incident set up by the prosecution. As neither the prosecution nor the defence have, in the case before us, come out with the whole and unvarnished truth, so as to enable the Court to judge where the rights and wrongs of the whole incident or set of incidents lay or how one  or more  incidents  took  place  in  which  so  many   persons, including Laldhari and Ramanandan, were injured, courts  can only  try  to guess or conjecture to decipher the  truth  if possible.   This  may  be done within  limits  to  determine whether  any  reasonable doubt emerges on  any  point  under consideration  from. proved facts and circumstances  of  the case. It  appears to us that the prosecution had,  rather  vainly, tried to, prove that only one occurrence took place  between the parties on the morning of 15-7-1965 and that this was in the field of Dukhharan only, and that whatever injuries were inflicted  on  various persons were all,  sustained  in  the course of that occurrence.  We are unable to hold’,. after , perusing  the statements of the prosecution witnesses,  that this,.  part of the prosecution version of the  incident  is proved beyond reasonable doubt.  It does not explain all the proved  facts  and circumstances, If we were  to  resort  to guess  work  and conjecture, we may be able to.  infer  that some incident took place over the Shikmi land also which was shown  to have been ploughed.  This ploughing was  probably, earlier and led to the incident in which Ramanandan lost his fingers,.The  aggression must, at that time, have come  from the party of Dukhharan.  We cannot, however, definitely come to this conclusion as no party has led any evidence to prove what  we are left only to guess and conjecture  from  proved facts  and  circumstances.  We think that  there  is  enough indication  given by proved facts and circumstances to  show that  the  incident  in which a number  of  women  sustained injuries must have been the result of a legally  unjustified retaliation  against  an earlierattack upon  Ramanandan  and others.  This may also explain why, 616 persons  from other villages are said to have joined in  the attack upon the party of Dukhharan probably out of  sympathy for Ramanandan. We  think  that  the Trial Court had, after  coming  to  the conclusion, on quite unsatisfactory material, that the whole occurrence must have taken place on field No. 39, failed  to examine  the  manner  in  which  the ,dispute  must   have originated and the occurrence developed, perhaps by  stages,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

into  one  resulting  in injuries of so  many  persons.   It appears from the statements of persons actually injured that they were not able to make out all the members of the crowd, which  assembled,  but  they could remember  those  who  had inflicted injuries upon them. In the circumstances brought out from the total evidence  in the case, both occular and circumstantial, we think that  it will not be safe to convict any person for any offence other than  that  revealed  by the injuries he is  shown  to  have inflicted upon an actually injured witness deposing  against him.   An  injured witness, in any case,  would  not  easily substitute a wrong person for his actual assailant.  It  has not  been  shown  to  us that  there  was  motive  for  such substitution.  it  also appears to us  that,  although,  the actual quarrel originated and the assault began somewhere in the  Shikmi  land where Ramanandan was  overwhelmed  by  the party of Dukhharan, yet, when a large number of persons came to the help of Ramanandan, out of sympathy for him, it  must have  extended further so that the party of  Dukhharan  must hive been chased, By that time, a number of women folk,  who may  have been working in and around the field of  Dukhharan may  have  come to the scene and tried to take the  side  of their men folk.  Hence, they too were injured.  The  injured witnesses  could  be relied upon only for what  they  depose about injuries inflicted upon them at this last stage of the whole  occurrence.  There may have been even short  gaps  of time between the different stages. On  the evidence on record we are also left guessing  as  to how  Laldhari deceased could have been injured.  It is  true that  three out of thirteen witnesses, as already  indicated above,  have  stated that Jamuna gave the lathi  blow  which resulted  in  the death of Laldhari.  But,  we  think  that, where so many witnesses, who had an equally good opportunity to  observe what Jamuna appellant did not involve Jamuna  at all  and omit even mentioning so prominent a feature of  the occurrence  as the attack on Laldhari, it could not be  held beyond  reasonable doubt that the fattal injury on  Laldhari deceased  was  actually  caused  by  the  lathi  of  Jamuna, appellant,  and  of no other person.  We,  therefore,  think that  Jamuna  is  entitled to the  benefit  of  doubt  which emerges  on  the question as to who caused  that  injury  on Laldhari. The  Trial Court had acquitted 18 out of 31 accused  persons on  the  _ground that no overtact had  been  proved  against them.    It  had,  how..ever,  convicted  Jamuna   Chaudhary separately under Section 302 I. P. C. .,and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.  The remaining 12 appellants, namely, Rajdhari,   Muni  Chamar,  Ramayan,  Ramanandan   Chaudhary, Kishundeo Ahir, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary, Ramsewak, Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja Ahir and Ramnath, were convicted under Sections 326/149 and sentenced to undergo rigorous 617 imprisonment for six years each.  Appellants Ramanandan  and Sheopujan  Chamar were also convicted under Section 325  and sentenced   to  four  years  rigorous   imprisonment.    The appellants, Rajdhari, Sheopujan Chamar, Ganga Chaudhary  and Ramnath  were also convicted under Section 324 I. P. C.  and sentenced  to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three  years each.   Appellants Muni, Ramayan, Kishundeo Ahir,  Sheopujan Chamar,  Ramsewak,  Palakdhari, Swaminath, Raja  Ahir,  were convicted  under  Section  323  and  sentenced  to   undergo rigorous  imprisonment for one year.  No  separate  sentence was   passed  against  Rajdhar,  Sheopujan   Chamar,   Ganga Chaudhary  and Ramnath under Section 148 or against  Jamuna, Muni-Chamar, Ramayan, Ramanandan, Kishundeo Ahir,  Ramsewak,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Palakdhari,  Swaminath,  Raja  Ahir  for  conviction   under Section 147 I.P.C. The sentences so passed were directed  to run concurrently. When  the  appellants took their appeal to  the  High  Court neither  the evidence of the witnesses nor the cases of  the individual accused except Jamuna were discussed at all.  The High  Court  observed  that,  in  view  of  the   arguments, advanced,  it  would  reduce the sentences of  each  of  the accused  persons, other than Jamuna appellant, by half.   So far  as  jamuna appellant was concerned, it dealt  with  the case only to point out that the head injury was a stray one. This  injury  had been held, by the High Court also,  to  be outside the scope of the common object.  The High Court came to  the conclusion that the appellant Jamuna could  only  be convicted  under  Section  304 I. P. C. IInd  part  for  the injury on Laldhari’s head.  Therefore, convicting him  under that  section,  it  sentenced him to  five  years’  rigorous imprisonment. it maintained his conviction under Section 147 I.  P. C. With the necessary modifications, the  appellants’ appeals were dismissed. We  are  unable to discover from the judgment  of  the  High Court  whether  the learned counsel for  the  appellant  had confined his submissions to those affecting the sentences or alteration  of the Section under which the appellant  Jamuna was   to  be  convicted.   We  can  only  infer,  from   the observations  of the High Court, that this may  explain  the very superficial manner in which the case was dealt with  by the  High  Court.  We’ may, however,  observe  that  learned counsel are expected to assist Courts in reaching a  correct conclusion  in a case in which so much evidence and so  many witnesses  and points worth consideration were  there.   The High  Court  had  dealt with the appeal in  a  very  summary fashion.   It  would have been better if  the  statement  of reasons   for  the  conclusions  reached  by  it  was   more enlightening. in  view  of the rather laconic judgment given by  the  High Court  of Patna in this case which has come up before us  by special appeal, we were inclined, at one stage, to send this case  back to the High Court for rewriting of the  judgment, but, it was pointed pout, on behalf of the appellants,  that the case is quite old and would impose unnecessary  hardship on the appellants if they were to face further.  proceedings in the High Court.  We have, therefore gone through the main features of the evidence ourselves.  We have for the reasons already  given  above come to the conclusion  that,  on  the evidence on record, it would not be 618 -safe  to  hold that it was Jamuna Chaudhary  only  and  not someb ody else who could have inflicted the fatal injury  on Laldhari  ,deceased.  Moreover, we cannot be quite  definite about  the circumstances in which it was inflicted.   Hence, Jamuna Chaudhary is entitled to the benefit of doubt so  far as this injury to Laldhari is concerned.  We have also  come to  the  conclusion that the injured  witnesses,  ,who  have given  specific  acts of accused who struck them,  could  be relie d upon to convict particular accused persons.  This is the  test  which  the Trial  Court  had  correctly  employed against  individual accused persons.  We think that the  use of  Sections  147 and 149 against them was  also  justified. The  High  Court  had reduced all  sentences  by  half.   We maintain  their convictions.  But, as we are  informed  that the  sentences  awarded have been undergone almost  for  the whole period by ,each convict appellant, we think that  ends of justice will be served by reducing their sentences to the periods  already  undergone.   The result is  that  we  give

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Jamuna  Chaudhary, appellant, the benefit of doubt  for  the offence  under  Section 304 I. P. C. and acquit him  of  the charge  ,for it.  We, however, hold Jamuna Chaudhary  guilty of  offenses punishable under Section 147 I. P. C. with  the other  accused.   We maintain -all the  convictions  of  the other accused persons also.  But, we reduce the sentences of the appellants for various offenses of which they have  been convicted to the periods already undergone.  This appeal  is allowed .to the extent indicated above.  As the sentences of all  the  appellants  are  reduced  to  the  period  already undergone, they will be released forthwith unless wanted  in some other connection.                                Appeal partly allowed. P. B. R. 619