Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 9 (JHR)

MADAN YADAV v. STATE OF BIHAR

2000-11-21

D.N.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence dated 9-2-1994 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in S. T. No. 17 of 1989, whereby and whereunder the learned court below has been pleased to convict the sole appellant under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been pleased to order that the appellant shall be released on interim bond of Rs. 2,000/- with one surety of the like amount for maintaining peace and good behaviour for a period of one year. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief as alleged that on 27-4-1987 at about 9. 30 a. m. when Kameshwar Mandal, Basant Kumnar and Jagdish Sharma employees of Kapasara Colliery on the orders of the officers of the Colliery were removing the articles of the old quarter of Bhagat Bhowrah, Madan Yadav having a lathi came there and started assaulting Kameshwar Mondal, who fell down sustaining the injuries. On Hulla, other employees rushed to the spot and thereafter the appellant Madan Yadav fled away. The injured Kameshwar Mondal was taken to the hospital at Mugma where he was treated and thereafter on the Fardbayan this case was registered against the appellant. After investigation the police submitted chargesheet. ( 3 ) THE appellant appeared before the court below. Charge under S. 307, I. P. C. was framed which was read over and explained to him, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty. The witnesses were examined in the court below. The defence also examined two witnesses. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court convicted the appellant under S. 323, I. P. C. only by the impugned judgment and he was released on furnishing bond of Rs. 2000/- to maintain peace for a period of one year. ( 4 ) IT may be noted here that the appellant executed bond on the same day which was also accepted by the court below. ( 5 ) ON being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that there is no medical report to substantiate the story of assault as well as there is much contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. ( 5 ) ON being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the appellant preferred this appeal on the ground that there is no medical report to substantiate the story of assault as well as there is much contradiction in the evidence of witnesses. It is also stated that the story about treatment of the injured is also very suspicious as none of the witnesses supported the said story as the doctor who has been examined clearly stated that he did not examine the injured and as such the judgment passed by the court below is fit to be set aside. ( 6 ) AT the very outset, it may be mentioned here that while convicting the appellant under Section 323, I. P. C. , the trial Court did not find the case true under S. 307, I. P. C. It is also apparent that the appellant was released on furnishing bond to maintain peace for a period of one year and in pursuance of the order the appellant also furnished the said bond on the same day which was accepted. ( 7 ) THERE is a specific allegation about assault to Kameshwar Mondal (PW-5) PW-4 is the independent witness and he is also an eye witness, who claimed in clear terms that it is the appellant who assaulted Kameshwar Mondal in his presence and due to assault he sustained injury on his head, as a result of which he fell down. The Informant, PW-5 also claimed that he was assaulted by the appellant Madan Yadav with lathi and he sustained injury. According to him, he was taken to hospital for treatment. PW-1, Deputy Personnel Manager of the said Colliery as well as PW-3 the Office Superintendent also claimed in their evidences that they came to know that the Informant, Kameshwar Mondal was assaulted by the accused Madan Yadav as he was treated in the Hospital. D. Ws. 1 and 2 examined on behalf of the defence appeared to be the formal witnesses and their evidence has not been corroborated by substantive evidence. ( 8 ) FROM the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is evident that the Informant, Kameshwar Mondal was actually assaulted by the sole accused Madan Yadav and as such I find that the prosecution has fully established the charge under S. 323, I. P. C. against the appellant. ( 8 ) FROM the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, it is evident that the Informant, Kameshwar Mondal was actually assaulted by the sole accused Madan Yadav and as such I find that the prosecution has fully established the charge under S. 323, I. P. C. against the appellant. Thus, I find that the Court below has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence charged. Apparently the appellant was released by furnishing bond and he has rightly been released accordingly as laid down u/s. 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ( 9 ) IN the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The judgment and order of sentence dated 9-2-1994 is, hereby, affirmed. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .