Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 811 (PAT)

Rajeshwar Rai v. State Of Bihar

2011-04-26

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2011
JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellant No.1 of Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1995 and the Appellant of Criminal Appeal No. 37 of 1995 have been convicted Under Section 307 I.P.C. and all the three Appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 5 years by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in Sessions Trial No. 268 of 1989/100 of 1992 by a judgment dated, 30th March, 1995. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27th April, 1998 when the Informant PW. 5 went to see his onion field he saw that there was certain trampling marks and when he questioned the Accused persons they got enraged and the Appellant Jai Mangal Rai is said to have assaulted the Informant with a chhura on his abdomen and when PW. 2 Ram Kailash Rai protested Appellant Rajeshwar Rai assaulted with a chhura on his neck and the rest of the Accused persons assaulted with danda, fists and slaps. 3. During trial the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 3, PW. 4, PW. 5 and PW. 6 all belong to the same family, out of which PW. 2 and PW. 5 are the injured witnesses. PW. 8 and PW. 9 are formal witnesses on the fact that the Investigating Officer was dead. PW. 7 is the doctor, who examined the PW. 2 and PW. 5. One witness was examined on behalf of the defence and some documents were brought on record to show that there was a counter case with regard to the same occurrence and PW. 2 and PW. 5 were named as Accused in the said case. On going through the evidence of the doctor, I find that the injuries sustained by the two injured i.e. PW. 2 and PW. 5 were on vital parts whereas the injury found on the person of PW. 5 was grievous in nature, the doctor opined that the injury of PW. 2 was simple in nature. However, PW. 3 has fairly conceded in his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence some onion plants have been damaged by the oxen of Accused Mahesh Rai, on account of which he and others had assaulted the Accused persons. 5 was grievous in nature, the doctor opined that the injury of PW. 2 was simple in nature. However, PW. 3 has fairly conceded in his cross-examination that on the date of occurrence some onion plants have been damaged by the oxen of Accused Mahesh Rai, on account of which he and others had assaulted the Accused persons. One can safely assume that in fact the Accused persons, if at all assaulted, did so in right of self defence of person and the intention of the Accused persons was not to cause the death. All the witnesses have conceded this fact that there was counter version of the occurrence and, therefore, it is difficult to uphold the conviction of the Appellants Under Section 307/149 IPC. 4. In view of the discussions made above, the conviction of the Appellants is converted to one under Section 324 IPC and they are sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.