Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 760 of 2009. Case: Gyan Ravi Das Vs The State of Bihar. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 760 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Rama Kant Sharma, Sr. Advocate, Binod Murari Mishra and Prem Kumar, Advocates and For Respondents: Ashwani Kumar Sinha, A.P.P. |
| Judges | V. N. Sinha and Prabhat Kumar Jha, JJ. |
| Issue | Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 161; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 299, 302, 307, 324, 326, 328, 387, 448, 452 |
| Judgement Date | February 11, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
V. N. Sinha, J.
-
This appeal has been filed by the sole appellant/accused against the judgment dated 29.06.2009/30.06.2009 passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge-XIII, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 2008/40 of 2009, arising out of Mokama P.S. Case No. 47 dated 11.04.2005, initially registered for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 448 and 387 of the Penal Code for causing grievous injury to Father Mathew, who succumbed to the injuries on 01.05.2005, whereafter Section 302 of the Penal Code was also added on 05.05.2005, whereunder the sole accused appellant has been convicted for the charge under Sections 302, 452 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Penal Code with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, Simple Imprisonment for five years. For the offence under Section 452 of the Penal Code, sole accused has been directed to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years with direction to pay fine of Rs. 2500/-, in default of payment of fine to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one year nine months. Both the sentences, however, have been directed to run concurrently.
-
Prosecution case, as set out in the fardbeyan of informant Father Thomas (P.W. 5) in Nazareth Hospital, Mokama, District- Patna, recorded by Sub-Inspector Suresh Ram of Mokama Police Station on 11.04.2005 at 19:30 hours (7:30 P.M.) in Father's room Nazareth Hospital is that informant along with Sister Suza of Notredam, Jamalpur (P.W.3) (who came to Mokama only yesterday) was returning at 7:05 P.M. from the Old Church and had just reached near the residence-cum-office of the Father of the Church where Sadhu Shila Nand (P.W. 1), Ajay Kumar (not examined) were talking to each other, heard Father screaming from inside the office room and rushed there and saw Father Mathew fallen on the ground west of his chair near the almirah and blood was oozing from his body. In front of the Father, appellant, who is resident of Mohangachhi, P.S.- Mokama, armed with blood stained knife, was also standing, moved out of the Father's room scaring the informant and others with the knife and ran away towards north. Father informed the informant that the injury has been caused by the knife over his throat and the blood was oozing therefrom. The informant also noticed blood on the floor of the room. Informant and others telephonically informed the hospital wherefrom staff came and carried the Father on the stretcher to the hospital. Injured Father's personal staff Maso, whose name Father was calling, also helped in carrying Father on the stretcher to the hospital. After reaching the hospital, injured Father Mathew informed those present in the hospital that appellant was asking for money but on his refusal to pay, he inflicted the injury and that Father Mathew is being treated in the hospital. In the last paragraph of the fardbeyan informant claimed that appellant has inflicted the injury as Father refused to pay him. Informant having read the fardbeyan found the same to contain the correct version of the occurrence, put his signature over the same. The fardbeyan has also been attested by Sadhu Shila Nand (P.W. 1), Sister Meri Suza (P.W. 2).
-
Sub-Inspector Suresh Ram having scribed the fardbeyan forwarded the same to the Officer-in-Charge, Mokama Police Station and then proceeded to make seizure of incriminating articles from the table of Father Mathew as also one small broken piece of almirah glass was seized vide seizure-list dated 11.04.2005 in presence of Joseph Rajendra (P.W. 4) and the informant (Exhibit-8). The Officer-in-Charge, Mokama Police Station, on the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, registered Mokama P.S. Case No. 47/05 dated 11.04.2005 and requested Sub-Inspector Suresh Ram to investigate the case.
-
During investigation of the case Father Mathew, injured, was referred to Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna on 16.04.2005 for better treatment. While in treatment at Kurji Holy Family Hospital, Patna, Father Mathew passed away on 01.05.2005, whereafter his Inquest was made on the same day at 8:00 A.M. in the Private Ward Room No. 328 of Kurji Holy Family Hospital by Sub-Inspector Bharat Upadhyay of Patliputra Police Station, Patna, who found knife injury over his throat/neck and left side of chest near nipple. Inquest proceeding was conducted by Sub-Inspector Bharat Upadhyay in presence of Josh Nampeli (Assistant Administrator of the hospital) (not examined), Father Sabestin (P.W.8). Post mortem on the dead body of Father Mathew was also conducted on 01.05.2005 by Dr. Vishnu Deo Prasad of P.M.C.H. During investigation Sub-Inspector Suresh Ram not only collected the Inquest Report from Sub-Inspector Bharat Upadhyay of Patliputra Police Station but also obtained the Post Mortem Report from Dr. Vishnu Deo Prasad (P.W. 6) and in the light of the police statement of as many as 11 witnesses, recorded during investigation, the second Investigating Officer Shrawan Kumar Rajak (P.W. 10) submitted charge-sheet No. 162/07 on 14.11.2007 against sole accused appellant indicating that he was arrested in the present case on 02.11.2007 from his Bihta residence and forwarded to Court on 03.11.2007.
-
In the light of the materials referred to in the charge-sheet and the case diary, cognizance for the different offences, found true during investigation, was taken and after supply of police paper to the sole accused case was committed to the court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the sole accused appellant under order dated 02.06.2008, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
-
In support of the charge, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Sadhu Shila Nand, P.W. 3 Sister Mery Suza and the informant (P.W. 5) Father Thomas Charowelly are the eye-witnesses of the occurrence. P.W. 2 Dr. Dilip Kumar is the Medical Officer of Nazareth Hospital, Mokama who initially examined injured, later deceased, Father Mathew on 11.04.2005 at 8:05 P.M. in the Nazareth Hospital. P.W. 6 Dr. Vishnu Deo Prasad is the other doctor who conducted Post Mortem examination of the deceased. P.W. 4 Joseph Rajendra is a seizure-list witness. P.Ws. 7, 9 and 10 are the three police officers who prepared the Inquest Report, conducted investigation and submitted charge-sheet. P.W. 8 Sebstin is the inquest witness. Defence of the accused appellant is complete denial. He has also examined two defence witnesses. They are D.W. 1, 2 Sujeet Kumar, the Cook, who is also named in fardbeyan and cited as a prosecution witness in the charge-sheet, Durga Prasad Yadav.
-
Before proceeding to consider the submission made by the counsel for the appellant, State and the informant, it is necessary to appraise the evidence of the three eye-witnesses of the occurrence and other witnesses examined by the prosecution.
7 (i). P.W. 1 Sadhu Shila Nand has claimed in his evidence that on 11.04.2005 between 6:30-7:00 P.M. he was in the campus of Mokama Church and while standing in front of office-cum-residence of the Father of the Church was talking to Ajay Kumar. Just then informant P.W. 5 and Sister Suza, talking to each other, also came there from somewhere. Cook Sujeet (not examined) was also around as he was coming and going. Meanwhile, scream was heard from the office of Father Mathew. P.W. 1 and others rushed towards the room and saw Father Mathew fallen from his chair, was screaming, blood was also oozing from his neck. Appellant Gyan Das was by his side armed with a blood stained knife and appeared angry, extending threat by gesture went out of the office room. P.W. 1 also followed, saw him running away. In Paragraph 2 of his evidence P.W. 1 stated that the injured Father Mathew was saying that Gyan Das wanted to establish a fictitious N.G.O. and that he refused to put his signature. Father Mathew also stated that he was asking for money, which request was also refused by him and he is forgiving him. In Paragraph 3 P.W. 1 stated that he telephonically informed all concerned about the occurrence. Telephone call to the hospital, however, could not materialize, then someone was asked to call the doctor from hospital. Father Mathew was taken to Nazareth Hospital, Mokama for treatment. After few days he was taken to Kurji Hospital, Patna for further treatment and that he passed away during treatment. In Paragraph 4 P.W. 1 identified the accused. P.W. 1 in Paragraph 5 has stated that earlier in Mokama Father Mathew, Father Martin and Father Philip were posted and Father Martin was also killed at the same place. In the same paragraph he declined the suggestion that Father Martin was killed because there was rivalry between the priests to become Father. In Paragraph 6 P.W. 1 named the locality adjoining Mokama Church i.e. Chandwari and Madan Gachhi but stated that he is not aware of the communities residing in those localities but accepted that he has visited those colonies. In the same paragraph he further stated that he is not aware about the number of persons in the two localities who were converted from Hinduism to Christianity including the community of those converted into Christianity. In the same paragraph P.W. 1 stated that both the localities are just adjacent to the church but he is not aware about their distance from the church. P.W. 1 also stated in the same paragraph that Chandwari locality is just contiguous to the church but the other locality is at a distance of one furlong. In Paragraph 7 P.W. 1 has stated that he is not aware about the population of the two localities. In the same paragraph he also stated that he is not aware about the area of the church but the main gate of the church is on the north eastern side. In the same paragraph P.W. 1 feigned ignorance about the security arrangement on the main gate of the church. He also stated in the same paragraph that he is not aware as to whether any watchman is posted in the church. In the same paragraph he also...
To continue reading
Request your trial