Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1379 (PAT)

Ambika Ram @ Amrik Ram v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 326, 452, IPC and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for four years, one year and one year respectively, whereas the appellant No. 2 has been convicted under Sections 326/34 and 452, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for two years and one year respectively by a judgment dated 27.2.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No. 1, Nalanda in Sessions Trial No. 328 of 1987/219 of 2001. 2. The case of the informant Suresh Ram is that on 22.4.1987 at 6 p.m. when he was sitting inside his house, the appellants entered into the same and started to altercate with him about the wall which was being constructed. Appellant Ambika Ram thereafter fired with his pistol which hit him on his thigh below the right waist, at which he fell down. Appellant Arvind Ram kicked him on his chest. When he raised a hulla, the witnesses arrived and the appellants fled away. 3. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 are eye-witnesses and material, whereas PW 4 is the injured Suresh Ram. PW 6 is the doctor, who examined the injured. PW 7 Singheshwar Mahto and PW 8 Nathun Ram are hearsay witnesses. PW 9 Surendra Prasad Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case. 4. PW 1 Jagdish Ram stated that on the date of occurrence while he was sitting in his angan along with his brother, the accused persons entered there and began altercating with the informant. After which they assaulted him in the manner described in the First Information Report. 5. PW 2 Sona Devi is the wife of PW 1 Jagdish Ram, who has also supported the same fact. PW 3 is Chameli Devi is the wife of injured-Informant Suresh Ram, who has given identical evidence as that of PW 1 and PW 2. PW 4 Suresh Ram gave out the same version as he had given in the First Information Report. PW 5 Sikandh Mahto has been declared hostile. 6. PW 6, the doctor, found two injuries on the person of the injured, while one was that of entry other was of the exit and the same was grievous in nature. 7. PW 4 Suresh Ram gave out the same version as he had given in the First Information Report. PW 5 Sikandh Mahto has been declared hostile. 6. PW 6, the doctor, found two injuries on the person of the injured, while one was that of entry other was of the exit and the same was grievous in nature. 7. I find that there is nothing to discredit the consistent statements of the eye-witnesses even if they are interested. Hence on going through the nature of evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, I would be of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. 8. However, considering that the appellant No. 1 has remained in custody for about seven months, the sentence is reduced to one already undergone by him. As for the appellant No. 2 since there was no allegation of assault upon him, his sentence is also reduced to one already undergone by him during trial. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed.