Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1366 (PAT)

ANJANA PRAKASH v. State of Bihar

2013-12-03

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 147, 452/149, 341/149 and 307/149, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year under Section 147, four years under Section 452/149, five years under Section 307, IPC and simple imprisonment for one month under Sections 341/149 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S. Tr. No. 273/96 by judgment and order dated 7.8.2000. 2. The case of the informant, Manindra Das is that on 2.5.1995 at about 9 p.m. the accused persons entered into his house variously armed and dragged him out. Thereafter, the appellant gave a lathi blow on his head on account of which it was fractured while the rest of the accused persons also assaulted variously whereafter they fled away. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom PW 1, Amarchandra Das the brother of the informant stated that on the date of occurrence the accused persons came variously armed inside his house and assaulted his brother on account of which he was injured. However, in his cross-examination he stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he merely saw his sister and injured. 4. PW 2, Nagendra Das is also brother of the informant stated that he had come to the place of occurrence where the accused persons also came and started to abuse and assaulted his brother. In his cross-examination it was suggested to him that a case has been instituted against him and his brother by the accused. 5. PW 3, Sushila Kumari is the sister of the informant and also a witness named in the First Information Report. She supported the version of his brother. 6. PW 4, Manindra Chandra Das is the informant who stated that on the date of occurrence the accused persons variously armed came and dragged him out of the house and thereafter assaulted him. 7. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer who stated that he did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. 8. PW 6, Dr. Chandra Mauli Upadhyay stated that he examined the injured on 2.5.1995 and found the following six injuries on his person out of which Injury Nos. 7. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer who stated that he did not find any blood at the place of occurrence. 8. PW 6, Dr. Chandra Mauli Upadhyay stated that he examined the injured on 2.5.1995 and found the following six injuries on his person out of which Injury Nos. (i)(v)(vi) were grievous and rest were simple (i) incised wound on head (ii) incised wound on chin (iii) incised would on heel (iv) incised injury on heel to toe (v) incised wound on toe (vi) incised wound on left ulna. However the injury on the head was opined to be caused by a sharp-cutting weapon. On noting the grievous injuries are on non-vital parts. 9. The counsel for the appellant submits that even accepting the prosecution case in its entirety in the manner of occurrence narrated by the Prosecution no offence under Section 307/149, IPC is made out. In the circumstances when even though there was no intervening circumstance the informant was injured only on non-vital parts of his body. In such circumstances, the conviction under Section 307/149 appears to be against the provision of law. 10. On going through the manner of occurrence, I am inclined to accept the submission raised on his behalf. As also on going through the evidence of the Doctor, I find that even though the prosecution case was that the informant had been assaulted once on the head with lathi but the Doctor found that the only injury on the head was caused by a sharp cutting weapon which completely contradicts the prosecution case. 11. In such view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 7.8.2000 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur in S. Tr. No. 273/96 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.