Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1493 (PAT)

Bhudhan Mandal S/o Janak Mandal v. State Of Bihar

2011-07-20

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant Bhudhan Mandal has been convicted under Sections 323, 448, 341 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code, one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code and four years under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code whereas Yogendra Mandal, Janak Mandal and Jhari Mandal have been convicted under Sections 323, 448 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months under Sections 323 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and one month under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1990 by a judgment dated 2.9.1997. 2. The prosecution case according to the Informant Sheoji Mandal (PW-8) is that on 22.3.1989 at about 6.30 P.M., Ram Shobhit Mandal rebuked his wife for playing Holi with Bindu Mandal. When the Informant went to Ram Shobhit Mandal and asked him as to how he was rebuking his wife for playing Holi with any one since it was the occasion of Holi, Chandar Mandal came there and the Informant left along with him. In the meanwhile, the accused persons came there armed with lathi and caused injuries on his head and when Ram Prakash Mandal tried to intervene, he was also assaulted. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined fifteen witnesses out of whom PW-11 Yadunandan Mandal, PW-12, Devan Mandal and PW-13 Sita Devi have been tendered whereas PW-1 Raj Kumari Devi, PW-2, Bisheshwar Mandal, PW-3 Baldeo Mandal, PW-4 Yogeshwar Mandal, PW-5 Ram Prasad Mandal, PW-6 Gulabiya Devi, PW-7 Ram Khelawan Mandal, PW-8 Sheoji Mandal, Informant and PW-10 Daheva Devi are eye witnesses, out of which PW-5 and PW-8 are two injured witnesses. PW-9 is the Doctor who examined PW-5 Ram Prasad Mandal and PW-8 Sheoji Mandal, the Informant. PW-14 Dwarika Singh is the Investigation Officer whereas PW-15 Shambhu Prasad is a formal witness. 4. On an examination of the injuries sustained by the PW-5 and PW-8, I find that the Doctor Ramesh Chandra Mishra who examined the two witnesses had found four injuries on the person of the Informant (PW-8) but the nature of injury could not be ascertained by him since he had already taken medical aid before he approached PW-9. 4. On an examination of the injuries sustained by the PW-5 and PW-8, I find that the Doctor Ramesh Chandra Mishra who examined the two witnesses had found four injuries on the person of the Informant (PW-8) but the nature of injury could not be ascertained by him since he had already taken medical aid before he approached PW-9. The Doctor found one bruise on the person of Ram Prasad Mandal (PW-5) which was evidently simple in nature. 5. PW-8 in his Fardbeyan did not allege that the Appellants had set fire to his house but later on, this story was developed when the house was shown to the Investigating Officer which was possibly remains of Holika Dahan. 6. The defence also examined six witnesses on their behalf mainly on the point that firstly there had been a compromise between the parties and the case which was instituted by Nathuni Manal father of Ram Shobhit Mandal had also been withdrawn. 7. Exhibit-B was brought on record to demonstrate that there was a counter version of this occurrence brought on record by one Nathuni Mandal, father of Ram Shobhit Mandal. 8. No. doubt, PW-5 and PW-8 the two injured have supported the fact that the Appellants Chander Mandal, Jhari Mandal, Janak Mandal, Yogendra Mandal and Bhudhan Mandal had beaten them with a lathi even while others assaulted him as also PW-5 Ram Prasad Mandal but the story that fire had been set to his house has to be necessarily rejected for the reason that it did not form part of his earlier version given in the Fardbeyan. 9. As a result, the Appellant Budhan Mandal is acquitted of the charge under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the Appellants under Section 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 10. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.