Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 952 (PAT)

SITA RAM TIWARY v. STATE OF BIHAR

2012-07-10

SHEEMA ALI KHAN

body2012
JUDGMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant to press this appeal. Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. The State is represented by Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction dated 16th May, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 20th May, 2000 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah in Sessions Trial No. 769 of 1989 arising out of Arrah Town Police Station Case No. 379 of 1988 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, but released the appellant on furnishing probation on executing a bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties for the period of two years to maintain peace and good behavior. 3. The prosecution case lodged in the Male Surgical Ward, Sadar Hospital, Ara by Tuna Pandey. Tuna Pandey alleged that he was going to bus stand where he stopped and had a cup of tea. Thereafter, when he reached to the shop of Baijnath Sao, the accused persons came to the place of occurrence and it is alleged that Sitaram Tiwary assaulted by Fasuli which hit his head and the right side of the hand below elbow joint. Ram Jee Tiwary and one unknown muslim boy tried to use their pistols which did not fire. He was saved by his grandfather. The case was instituted under Section 307, 324 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. It has come during the trial that the informant is on litigating terms with the appellant. It has been mentioned in the First Information Report that accused Kedar Tiwary had lodged a case for the murder of Mukhiya Pandey against the informant and others. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, however, the doctor has been examined as prosecution witness. The two injury reports have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. The injury reports indicate that the injuries are simple and superfluous in nature. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, however, the doctor has been examined as prosecution witness. The two injury reports have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. The injury reports indicate that the injuries are simple and superfluous in nature. Laxman Pandey had a swelling on his head, whereas Tuna Pandey had had received four injuries: (i) incised wound on shoulder 2½” x 2” x 1/3”, (ii) on the lateral side right foresarm in the middle 1” x 1/3”, (iii) on the lateral side of left upper arm 1” x 1/3” x 1/3”, and (iv) in the occipital area which was 3½” x 2” x 1/8”. 5. The Trial Court, therefore, held that the injury shows that there was no intention to kill, besides which the First Information Report speaks about only one farsa blow. The Trial Court has also disbelieved that Kedar Tiwary could have participated in the occurrence as he was about 76 years of age. The occurrence has taken place on 18.12.1988. The Trial Court, therefore, has convicted the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. There is no good reason for differing with the reasoned and judgment of the Trial Court. Since, the period of probation of two years have already elapsed, this appeal has become infructuous. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous.