Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 110 (JHR)

Sadanand Singh v. State of Bihar

2004-01-29

VISHNUDEO NARAYAN

body2004
Judgment Vishnudeo Narayan, J.-These appeals at the instance of the appellants stand directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 15.7.1998 and 16.7.1998 respectively passed in Sessions Trial No. 326 of 1995 by Shri Kapileshwar Prasad, Sessions Judge, Giridih whereby and whereunder they were found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in default thereof to under-go further S.I. for one year. However, they were not found guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 802/34 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and they were, accordingly, acquitted in respect thereof. 2. The prosecution case has arisen on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 3) of informant P.w. 5, Birendra Kumar Singh, the brother of the Dhirendra Kumar Singh, the deceased of this case recorded by A.S.I., B.K. Singh of Dhanwar P.S. in Referal hospital, Dhanwar on 13.10.1994 at 10.45 hours regarding the occurrence which is said to have taken place on that very day at 8.30 hours at the house of the appellant in village Orkhar, P.S. Dhanwar, District Giridih and a case was instituted under Sections 307, 379, 323, 324 and 341/34 of the Indian Penal Code against them by drawing of a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 4) on that very day at 12.00 hours and the said fardbeyan and the F.I.R. have been received on 17.10.1994 in the court empowered to take cognizance. Dhirendra Kumar Singh aforesaid has died on 29.10.1994 at Bokaro hospital in course of his treatment of the injuries sustained on his person due to sepsis and offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added as per report of the I.O. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Dhirendra Kumar Singh, the deceased of this case, resident of village Orkhar, Mauza Karudih used to run a readymade garment shop at Gandhi chowk, Dhanwar and he used to deliver garments on credit to his customers. It is alleged that the said deceased had gone to the house of appellant Mukund Singh resident of his village Orkhar at 8.30 hours on 13.10.1994 for realization of Rs. It is alleged that the said deceased had gone to the house of appellant Mukund Singh resident of his village Orkhar at 8.30 hours on 13.10.1994 for realization of Rs. 500/- which was due against the appellant for the supply of the garments and when he made the demand both the appellants along with co-accused Gauri Singh (since dead) started assaulting him by fist and slap. It is further alleged that the informant came to the place of occurrence on alarms and found appellant Sadanand Singh armed with a blood stained bhala and the deceased fallen on the ground groaning in pain and at that time appellant Mukund Singh and co-accused Gauri Singh were assaulting him by la/hi. It is further alleged that P.w. 1, Narsingh Singh, P.w.2. Arun Kumar Singh and Janardan Singh (not examined) also came there on alarms and they saved the deceased from being further assaulted. It is alleged that the deceased became unconscious at the place of occurrence and he was brought to the Refral hospital for treatment and is still unconscious. The prosecution case further is that in course of the occurrence the appellants have removed a sum of Rs. 4,000/- from the pocket of the deceased beside his H.M.T. wrist watch. It is also alleged that there are several injuries on the chest of the deceased caused by appellant Sadanand Singh. 4. The appellants have pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against them and they claim themselves to be innocent and to have committed no offence and they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of P.W. 1, Narsingh Singh due to enmity existing and alive between him and these appellants and there were several cases in respect of the land between Nand Kishore Singh the father of the P.w. 1 Narsingh Singh on the one hand and Brahma Singh, the full brother of Luto Singh who is the father's father of the appellants. 5. The prosecution has in all examined nine witnesses to substantiate its case. Informant, P.W. 5, Birendra Kumar Singh is the brother of the deceased and he has turned hostile and does not at all support the prosecution case as averred by him in his fardbeyan (Ext. 3). P.w. 1, Narsingh Singh and P.w. 2 Arun Kumar Singh claim themselves to be the ocular witness of the occurrence. P.W. 4, Ani! Informant, P.W. 5, Birendra Kumar Singh is the brother of the deceased and he has turned hostile and does not at all support the prosecution case as averred by him in his fardbeyan (Ext. 3). P.w. 1, Narsingh Singh and P.w. 2 Arun Kumar Singh claim themselves to be the ocular witness of the occurrence. P.W. 4, Ani! Kumar Singh is not an eye witness of the occurrence. P.w. 3, Shiv Shankar Prasad Singh has turned hostile and P.w. 7 Kanti Prasad Singh has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 9, Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma has examined the deceased in the Referal hospital, Dhanwar and the report in respect thereof per his pen is (Ext. 6). P.W. 6, Dr. Koushalendra Kumar has conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and the post mortem report is Ext. 2 in this case. P.W. 8, Ayodhya Rai is the Investigating Officer of this case. One Shambhu Singh, resident of village Orkhar has figured as a defence witness and Ext. A is the map of village Karudih. Ext. B is the certified copy of the order sheet of Case No. 878 of 1982 under Section 144/145 of the Cr.P.C. between Nand Kishore Singh and others on the one hand and Brahma Singh on the other hand. Ext. C is the order of the Hon'ble Court passed in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1745/ 83 (R) which has arisen out of Ext. B aforesaid. 6. Relying upon the evidence of P.w. 1 and P.W. 2 read with the evidence of the medical witnesses i.e. P.W. 9 and P.w. 6 coupled with the objective finding of the I.O. regarding the place of occurrence the learned court below came to the finding of the guilt of the appellant under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 7. Assailing the impugned judgment it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record in proper perspective and has erroneously come to the finding of the guilt of the appellant and P.w. 5, the informant has not at all supported the prosecution case and has also given a total go by to the prosecution case as averred by him and P.Ws. 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are all agnates and inter se related and they are all partisan witnesses having their houses far away from the alleged place of occurrence and specially P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be termed as an ocular witness of the occurrence in view of the inherent improbabilities and material contradictions appearing in their testimony. It has further been submitted that there is enmity existing and alive between Nand Kishore Singh, the father of P.w. 1 on the one hand and Brahma Singh, the brother of the paternal grand father of the appellants on the other hand and due to the said existing enmity P.w. 1 has got the appellants falsely implicated in this case by P.w. 5, the informant. It has further been contended that Karudih and Orkhar are two different villages far away from each other and there was no reason for the alleged ocular witnesses to have come to the alleged place of occurrence. It has also been submitted that the deceased had died due to sepsis in course of his treatment and there is no legal evidence on the record that the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased was grievous in nature which may in the ordinary course of nature caused his death and the objective finding of P.w. 9 regarding injury no. (1) appearing on the person of the deceased as clinically grievous has not been confirmed by any Surgeon of the R.M.C.H. where the injured was referred to by him for treatment and the said injury no. (i) does not fall within the ambit of the grievous injury as defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code. Lastly it has been contended that there is no iota of evidence on the record to prove the genesis of the occurrence as averred in the fardbeyan of the informant as well as the fact that the deceased was running a garment shop of Dhanwar and the appellants had taken clothes from his alleged shop on credit and thus the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 8. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned A.F.P. that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants for the realization of Rs. 8. Refuting the contention aforesaid it has been submitted by the learned A.F.P. that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants for the realization of Rs. 500/- which was due against them in respect of the clothes taken by them on credit from the garment shop of the deceased and both the appellants have assaulted the deceased causing injury on his person and appellant Sadanand Singh had assaulted the deceased by Bhala causing injury near his chest on the left side and P.w. 9 the medical witness has opined injury no. (i) as clinically grievous in view of the condition of the deceased brought before him in the Referal hospital, Dhanwar though the deceased has died of sepsis in course of treatment at Bokaro and in view of the evidence on the record the learned court below, though not finding the appellant guilty under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code has rightly convicted them under section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment requiring an interference therein. 9. The genesis of the occurrence according to the prosecution case is that the deceased had gone to the house of the appellants in the morning of the day of the occurrence for the realization of Rs. SOD/being the price of the clothes supplied to them on credit from his garment shop situate at Dhanwar. The informant and his brother Dhirendra Kumar Singh who i~ the deceased in this case are residents of village Karudih whereas the appellants are the resident of village Orkhar. Ext. A shows that both the villagers are distinct villagers and P.w. 8, the I.O. has deposed in para 3 of his evidence that village Karudih is situate west of village Orkhar and the distance between the two is half kilometre. P.W. 5 has deposed that the does not know as to why the deceased had gone at the house of the appellants in village Orkhar. P.W. 5 has not whispered in his evidence on oath that the deceased used to run a garment shop at Dhanwar and used to supply clothes on credit to his customers including the appellants. P.W. 5 has deposed that the does not know as to why the deceased had gone at the house of the appellants in village Orkhar. P.W. 5 has not whispered in his evidence on oath that the deceased used to run a garment shop at Dhanwar and used to supply clothes on credit to his customers including the appellants. P.w. 8, the I.O. in para 24 of his evidence has deposed that inspite of his persistent demand, the informant did not produce any paper evidencing the fact of the existence of the said readymade shop of the appellant and also the relevant papers including register of account of the said shop showing any amount of the deceased due against the appellants in respect of the supply of clothes on credit. P.W. 2, Arun Kumar Singh has deposed in para 2 of his evidence that P.W. 5 had told him that the deceased had a garment shop at Dhanwar and he had gone to the house of the appellant to realize from them his amount which was due against them for supply of the clothes from his shop and due to this demand this occurrence has taken place. The evidence of P.w. 2 aforesaid lacks credence in respect thereof in view of the fact that P.w. 5 is conspicuously silent in his testimony regarding the existence of the garment shop as well as supply of the clothes on credit to the appellants and the going of the deceased to the alleged place of occurrence for the realization of the due amount in respect thereof. P.w. 4 has deposed that the cause of the occurrence is of the demand of the due amount of clothes by the deceased from the appellant. The testimony of this witness also lacks credence in view of the evidence of P.w. 8, the I.O. referred to above P.w. 1, Narsingh Singh has deposed that the deceased had told him at the place of occurrence on his query that he had supplied clothes to the appellant on credit and he had come to the appellant to demand the said due amount and due to this he has been assaulted. In para 17 of his cross examination he has deposed that he has not stated before the I.O. that the deceased had told him regarding the supply of clothes on credit to the appellants rather he has told the I.O. that P.w. 5 the informant has stated to him that the deceased had gone to the appellants for realization of the due amount of clothes supplied to the appellants on credit. Therefore, the evidence of P.w. 1 is inconsistent in respect thereof. P.w. 2 has deposed in para 9 of his evidence that there was neither enmity nor friendship between the appellants and the deceased prior to the occurrence. In view of the evidence referred to above it becomes crystal clear that there is no iota of legal evidence on the record to substantiate the genesis and motive of the occurrence in question. Here in this case genesis of the occurrence has specifically been averred in the fardbeyan of the informant but in the genesis of the alleged occurrence absence of any evidence on the record in respect thereof, does not at all stand substantiated. 10. Before we advert to the evidence on the record it is pertinent to mention here that P.Ws. 5, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7 are all inter se related as agnates. P.w. 1, Narsingh Singh is the brother of P.w. 4. One Nand Kishore Singh is the father of P.Ws. 1 and 4. One Brahma Singh is the brother of the Luto Singh who is the paternal grand father of the appellants. The said Nand Kishore Singh was on litigating terms with Brahma Singh aforesaid in respect of some lands and several cases did take between them. Ext. B is the order dated 10.11.1982 in a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. of Case No. 878/82 between them and the said case was converted into a proceeding under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. in which the land in dispute was attached under Section 146(1) of the Cr.P.C. That proceeding was finally decided in favour of Brahma Singh aforesaid. P.W. 1, Narsingh Singh after the demise of Nand Kishore Singh had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1745 of 1983 before this Court which was finally dismissed vide order dated 8.8.1983. Ext. C corroborates this fact. P.W. 1, Narsingh Singh after the demise of Nand Kishore Singh had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No. 1745 of 1983 before this Court which was finally dismissed vide order dated 8.8.1983. Ext. C corroborates this fact. Therefore, there is enmity between the appellants on the one hand and the witnesses aforesaid of the prosecution on the other hand prior to the occurrence in question. In view of the facts aforesaid we have to scan and scrutinize the evidence on the record with due care and caution. The place of the alleged occurrence is at the house of the appellant in village Orkhar. Informant and the deceased of this case are resident of village Karudih and Orkhar and Karudih are two distinct villagers as per Ext. A and the distance between them is half kilometre as deposed by the I.O. P.Ws. 1, 2, 3. 4 and 7 are all residents of village Orkhar. The house of the appellant is in the extreme north in village Orkhar whereas the houses of the aforesaid witnesses except P.W. 7 Kanti Prasad Singh are in the extreme south in the said village. intervened by 10-12 houses. For this the evidence of P.W. 1 appearing in paras 2 and 3 is referred to P.W 5, the informant has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was at his house in village Karudih and he heard the alarms emanating from the vicinity of the house of the appellant and he rushed to the place of occurrence where he found the deceased fallen on the ground in the injured state. He has also deposed that he cannot say as to why the deceased had gone there and he has also not seen as to who has assaulted him. He has also deposed that he had gone to the place of occurrence on the alarms raised by P.W 3, Shiv Shankar Singh. P.W 3 Shiv Shankar Singh has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was coming to the house form the pond and when he reached near the house of one Muso Singh he found the deceased fallen on the ground in the injured state and a large number of persons had assembled there. He has also deposed that he has not seen as to who has assaulted him. He has also deposed that he has not seen as to who has assaulted him. P.W 5 in para 4 has deposed that his house is situate at a distance of one kilometre from the place of occurrence. He has also deposed that Shiv Shankar Singh found the deceased fallen on the ground in the injured state and he came running to turn and informed him and, thereafter, he rushed to the place of occurrence. In para 7 of his cross examination he has deposed that he has not seen P.W. 2. Narsingh Singh and p.w. 4, Anil Kumar Singh at the place of occurrence when he has reached there. Similar is the evidence of P.w. 3, Shiv Shankar Singh in para 4 of his evidence. However, both the aforesaid witnesses have been declared hostile and they are not supporting the prosecution case for the reasons best known to the prosecution. As per their testimony they cannot be termed as ocular witnesses of the occurrence. However, they have ruled out the possibility of the presence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 at the place of occurrence having an occasion to witness the assault on the deceased. P.w. 2, Arun Kumar Singh has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was at his house and on alarms he came to the place of occurrence where he found the deceased fallen on the ground in the injured state having bleeding injury on his chest and he also found the informant present there. He has deposed that he has seen the blood stained bhala in the hand of appellant Sadanand Singh and lathi in the hand of appellant Mukund Singh and co-accused Gauri Singh (since dead). The evidence of P.w. 2 having seen a blood stained weapons and lathi in the hand of appellant Sad an and Singh and Mukund Singh respectively at the place of occurrence does not stand corroborated by P.w. 5, the informant who as per his evidence was present there before the arrival of P.w. 2. P.w. 4, Anil Kumar Singh has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was on his way to Dhanwar from his house and when he reached near the house of the appellant he found about 100 persons assembled there and he has also seen the deceased in the injured state. P.w. 4, Anil Kumar Singh has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was on his way to Dhanwar from his house and when he reached near the house of the appellant he found about 100 persons assembled there and he has also seen the deceased in the injured state. He has further deposed that appellant Sadanand Singh had assaulted him with Bhala causing injury on his chest and appellant Mukund Singh and co-accused Gauri Singh had assaulted him with lathi. He has further deposed that the appellants and the co-accused aforesaid did not assault him when the deceased was fallen on the ground in the injured state. In para 13 of his cross examination he has deposed that he has not seen appellant Sadanand Singh assaulting the deceased by Bhala rather he has heard about it. In para 3 of his cross examination he has deposed that he saw about 100 persons assembled at the place of occurrence from a distance of 10-15 yards when he was away from Orkhar-Dhanwar road. Therefore, p.w. 2 cannot be said to be the ocular witness of the occurrence in question regarding the assault on the deceased by the appellants. Therefore, the testimony of P.Ws. 5, 2, 4, 3 and 7 does not support the prosecution case regarding the assault on the deceased by the appellants. P.W. 1, Narsing Singh is the only relevant witness in this case on the factum of assault allegedly perpetrated by the appellants on the deceased. He has deposed that at the time of the occurrence he was coming to his house from Dhanwar and when he reached near the house of Muso Singh he found uproar near the house of Muso Singh, He has further deposed that he saw appellant Sadanand Singh armed with bhala, appellant Mukund Singh and co-accused Gauri Singh armed with lathi coming out of their house, abusing the deceased and they started assaulting the deceased by bhala and lathi as a result of which the deceased became seriously injured and fell on the ground. In para 11 of his cross examination he has deposed that he had proceeded for Dhanwar at 5.00 or 5.30 hours on the day of the occurrence and he returned to his house at 9.30 hours. In para 11 of his cross examination he has deposed that he had proceeded for Dhanwar at 5.00 or 5.30 hours on the day of the occurrence and he returned to his house at 9.30 hours. He has also deposed that he had been at the place of occurrence at 8.30 hours and had stayed there for one hour. He has further deposed that he left his house again at 10.00 hours for Kedua More and from there he again proceeded for Dhanwar. In para 13 of his evidence he has deposed that he has not seen the occurrence from the road rather he had been at the place of occurrence where he has seen the occurrence. In para 13 he has further deposed that he has found blood fallen on the ground, the dimension of which is 3' x 3' at the place of occurrence. He has further deposed that he did not intervene to rescue the deceased rather the moment he reached at that place, the occurrence was over and, thereafter. P.w. 5, Birendra Kumar Singh and P.w. 7 Kanti Prasad Singh came there besides one Janardan Singh. In para 16 of his cross examination he has deposed that the deceased was assaulted while he was fleeing away as a result of which he fell down and, thereafter, he was given two or three lathi blows. P.w. 8, the I.O. in para 20 of his cross examination has specifically deposed that he has not found blood at the alleged place of occurrence though in para 3 of his evidence he has deposed to have found the place of occurrence trampled with foot steps. Therefore, the evidence of P.w. 1 stands materially contradicted by P.w. 8, the I.O. regarding existence of blood at the place of occurrence which is a circumstance to cast a cloud of suspicion to the credibility of the evidence of P.W. 1 as an ocular witness. Furthermore according to P.w. 1, the deceased was assaulted while he was fleeing away. The sharp cut injuries have been found in the precordial region over 5th and 6th inter costal space over the left side chest as per P.w. 9, the medical witness. The injury aforesaid as found by the medical witness cannot be caused if an assault is made when a person is fleeing away. The sharp cut injuries have been found in the precordial region over 5th and 6th inter costal space over the left side chest as per P.w. 9, the medical witness. The injury aforesaid as found by the medical witness cannot be caused if an assault is made when a person is fleeing away. Such injury may be caused only when assault is made on a person facing the assailant. This aspect of the matter also creates doubt in the testimony of P.W. 1 as an ocular witness. P.w. 1 is the shorn enemy of the appellants in respect of which I have stated above. PWs. 5 and 3 have also ruled out the presence of Pw. 1 at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. In this view of the matter the solitary testimony of pw. 1 uncorroborated by any other independent witness of the alleged occurrence when about 100 persons had assembled there lacks credence and furthermore pw. 1 has animus to depose falsely against the appellants. However, it appears that the deceased was found fallen on the ground in the injured state at the place of occurrence by the prosecution witnesses, namely, PWs. 5, 3, 2, 4, 7 and 1. Except P.w. 1 none of the witnesses named the appellants to have assaulted the deceased. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case it is not at all safe to rely upon the testimony of pw. 1 for the reasons stated above. Here in this case participation of the appellants in assaulting the deceased as alleged does not stand established beyond all reasonable doubts in view of the evidence on the record. I have already stated above that the prosecution has not proved the genesis of the occurrence in question and there is no ring of truth in the testimony of pw. 1 and it does not inspire confidence and in this view of the matter it can safely be said that there was no reason or motive for the appellants to assault the deceased as alleged. 11. The learned court below has found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. pw. 1 and it does not inspire confidence and in this view of the matter it can safely be said that there was no reason or motive for the appellants to assault the deceased as alleged. 11. The learned court below has found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code. pw. 9 has deposed to have examined the deceased on 13.10.1994 at 10.15 hours in the Refral hospital, Raj Dhanwar and has found the following injuries : (i) Incised wound with oozing blood over left side of chest in precordial area over 5th and 6th inter costal space measuring 7.5 cm x 5 cm, depth not probed. (ii) Incised wound with oozing blood measuring 2.5 cm x 1 c.m. x .5 cm on left third inter costal space of chest. (iii) Abrasion on right side of face measuring 2.5 cm x 2 cm. (iv) Abrasion on nose 2.5 cm. x 2 cm. (v) Abrasion 5.6 cm x 4.2 cm on right fore-arm. (vi) Abrasion intermittent 8.5 cm x 3.5 cm on left arm. The medical witness has further deposed that injury no. (i) is clinically grievous as the patient life was endangered and injury nos. (i) and (ii) have been caused by sharp cutting weapon such as Bhala and the nature of the rest of the injuries were simple. The medical witness has further deposed that he had sought Surgeon's opinion from R.M.C.H., Ranchi regarding injury no. (i) and had referred the Injured for treatment there. It appears that the injured was not taken to R.M.C.H., Ranchi rather he was taken to Bokaro for treatment. The opinion of the Surgeon regarding the nature of the injury no. (i) has not been received. It is equally pertinent to mention here that the medical witness has not found the injury nos. (i) and (ii) as penetrating injuries. So far injury no. (i) is concerned the depth was not probed and the depth of injury was 4.5 cm. The nature of the injury no. (i) and (ii) shows that its depth is very small which equally puts a big question mark regarding the said injuries having been caused by bhala which is a penetrating weapon. The deceased has died on 29.10.1994 in the course of treatment at Bokaro hospital due to sepsis. The death of the deceased has occurred after 14 days of the occurrence. The deceased has died on 29.10.1994 in the course of treatment at Bokaro hospital due to sepsis. The death of the deceased has occurred after 14 days of the occurrence. The I.O. has not recorded his statement in course of investigation during his period when he was alive for the reasons best known to him. The postmortem was conducted by P.w. 6, Dr. Koushalendra Kumar on 29.10.1994 at 3.30 P.M. and he found the bandaged wound on thoraco abdominal region with drainage tube in and the left side containing sero purulent substance (puss) and on removal of the abdominal bandage one left 4 inch paramedian incisional wound was seen which was infected and middle 2/3rd skin was gaping where Rs the signs of peeling wound was present in upper three and lower two stitch mark and the central part of the incision contained stitches which on removal puss came out. He has further deposed that on dissection the wound lead to the abdominal cavity and there was evidence of some operative work done as the funds of the stomach was stitched on the upper part greater curvature with blackish red. The stomach contained watery fluid. Mucosa was congested around stitch and the adjoining diaphragm and spleenic area contained sero, sanguine, purulent substance on the left side. Peritonium on the left side of the abdomen was of yellowish colour. Left side of kidney and spleen were covered with flakes of purulent substance. He has also deposed that on further dissection the signs of operative repair was present, stitched wound 2.5 cms. long on left infra-clavicular region at the level of 3rd rib with sero purulent discharge (on opening the stitches) and on opening the chest, right lung was found congested. Heart contained blood in both the chambers, whereas left side of the lung was collapsed into small mass' and the left side of the thoracic cavity was full of puss. P.w.6 has categorically deposed that the death of the deceased was due to sepsis. He has not specifically deposed that the sharp cutting injuries were dangerous to life and are grievous injuries. He has specifically deposed in the concluding portion of his cross examination that the deceased had sustained three incised wounds on his person. P.w.6 has categorically deposed that the death of the deceased was due to sepsis. He has not specifically deposed that the sharp cutting injuries were dangerous to life and are grievous injuries. He has specifically deposed in the concluding portion of his cross examination that the deceased had sustained three incised wounds on his person. This evidence of P.w. 6 goes at the very root of the prosecution case and demolishes the prosecution case in view of the fact that as per the case of the prosecution as averred in the fardbeyan as well as deposed by P.w. 1 two blows from bhala are said to have been given on the informant while he was fleeing away. There is no explanation on the record as to how the 3rd incised wound has appeared on the person of the deceased. The grievous hurt stands defined under Section 320 of the Indian Penal Code and in view of the absence of specific finding of either P.w. 9 or P.w. 6 regarding injury no. (i) being dangerous to life of the deceased it cannot be said that the injury no. (i) is a grievous wound. It is, therefore, evident from the testimony of P.w. 9 read with P.w. 6 that the death of the deceased is due to sepsis after 14 days of the occurrence in course of post operative treatment at Bokaro. The testimony of P.w. 1 Narsingh Singh is devoid of truth and he has animus to depose falsely and his testimony does not stand corroborated by any other independent witness of the alleged occurrence and even the informant has given the total go by to the prosecution case in his evidence on oath and the manner of the alleged occurrence as deposed by P.w. 1 stands materially contradicted as per the testimony of P.w. 8, the medical witness that the deceased had sustained three incised wounds on his person and the prosecution case suffers with inherent improbabilities and material contradictions in respect thereof and there is no legal evidence on the record regarding appellant Sadanand Singh assaulting the deceased with bhala causing the aforesaid injuries and in the facts and circumstances of this case the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. The learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants. The learned court below did not meticulously consider the evidence on the record and has erred in coming to the finding of the guilt of the appellants. I see substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment is unsustainable. 12. There is merit in these appeals and they succeed. The appeals are hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is hereby set aside. Both the appellants are found not guilty and they are, accordingly, acquitted and discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.