Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1332 (PAT)

Uma Nand Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar

2013-11-25

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- The appellants have been convicted under Section 325/34, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for five years by a judgment dated 19/20.4.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 1, Purnia in Sessions Trial No. 603 of 1996. 2. The case of the Informant is that on 1.4.1996 at about 7 p.m. one bullock of appellant Sada Nand Prasad Yadav started to graze the wheat crops of the Informant, so they started to take it away which was objected to by the accused persons and on this an altercation took place between the parties which escalated to the extent that appellant Sada Nand Prasad Yadav assaulted the Informant Bindeshwari Yadav with a farsa on his head and the appellant Uma Nand Prasad Yadav assaulted him with a lathi, whereafter appellant Uma Nand Prasad Yadav also assaulted the son of the Informant when he intervened. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 2 Mithilesh Kumar and PW 3 Rajesh Kumar have been declared hostile. PW 7 Om Prakash Singh is the doctor, who examined the injured-informant Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav (PW 5). PW 1 Uday Shankar Yadav, PW 4 Yogendra Sharma, PW 5 Informant Bindeshwari Prasad Yadav and PW 6 Raj Kumar are material .witnesses. On behalf of the defence two witnesses were examined to prove the injury reports of appellant Sada Nand Yadav and the counter version of the same occurrence. 4. PW 1 Uday Shankar Yadav stated that on the date of occurrence an altercation arose between the parties which led to an assault by the accused persons. However, he denied the counter version of the occurrence. PW 4 Yogendra Sharma stated about altercation between the parties and also assault and conceded that the appellant Sada Nand Yadav had also sustained injury on his eyebrow. PW 5 Bindeshwari Prasad, the Informant. repeated his version of the first Information Report and alleged that he had been assaulted with intent to cause his death. He denied the counter case having been filed by the Defence. PW 6 Raj Kumar Yadav is the son of the Informant, who repeated the version of his father with regard to the altercation and. assault. He also denied about the counter occurrence. 5. He denied the counter case having been filed by the Defence. PW 6 Raj Kumar Yadav is the son of the Informant, who repeated the version of his father with regard to the altercation and. assault. He also denied about the counter occurrence. 5. Apparently it appears that the prosecution has not brought the true version of the occurrence before the Court, which renders the prosecution case doubtful. Moreover, I find that substantively the prosecution case was that the Informant had been assaulted with intent to cause his death but the same has been disbelieved on a fair appraisal of the evidence by the trial Court. 6. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to uphold the conviction of the appellants. The appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 19/20.4.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Purnia in Sessions Trial No.603 of 1996 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.