Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1383 (PAT)

Umesh Prasad v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- The appellants have been convicted under Section 307/34, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for five years by a judgment dated 18.1.2002 and 22.1.2002 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 1994/50 of 2001. 2. The case of the prosecution according to informant Laldeo Thakur is that his house was situated adjacent to that of appellant Umesh Prasad, which had fallen down since last six months. He and his son Karpuri Thakur were constructing the mud wall over the said house. Suddenly on 20.3.1994 at about 2 p.m. Appellant Umesh Prasad reached there and forbade him from constructing the wall. When the informant protested, he and his son were abused and appellant started throwing bricks and tiles from their house, on account of which the informant and his son ran into their house to save themselves. Then the accused persons came variously armed and started to assault the informant and his son, on account of which they sustained serious injuries. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses in all. Out of whom, PW 1 Janeshwar Singh has stated that while he was at his house, he rushed to the place of occurrence and found the accused persons acting in a highhanded manner. He narrated the occurrence as given out by the informant and that the appellants had assaulted both the informant and his son. During cross-examination he stated that when he reached the place of occurrence he had seen the informant and his son lying injured meaning thereby that he was not an eye-witness to the occurrence. 4. PW 2 Awadhesh Singh has been declared hostile. PW 3 Arvind Singh stated that he rushed to the place of occurrence on hulla and saw the informant and his son in an injured condition. They allegedly told him about the occurrence. 5. PW 4 Karpuri Thakur is, the son of the informant, who stated the same version as that the informant had stated in his First Information Report. 6. PW 5 Laldeo this the injured Informant; who has not given any material difference in the manner of occurrence as that stated by him in the First Information Report. PW 6 John Basant Mintz is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. PW 7 is Dr. 6. PW 5 Laldeo this the injured Informant; who has not given any material difference in the manner of occurrence as that stated by him in the First Information Report. PW 6 John Basant Mintz is the Investigating Officer of the case. 7. PW 7 is Dr. Yogesh Prasad Sharma, who found two injuries on the person of Laldeo Thakur, both of them alleged caused by garasa and was grievous in nature. Similarly he also examined the injured Karpuri Thakur and found two injuries, one was simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon whereas second was grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. 8. It appears that certified copy of a proceeding under Section 144, Cr PC was brought on record by the defence vide Exhibit A to show that there was land dispute between the parties. 9. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the Investigating Officer has not found any objective material in support of the prosecution case, such as, brick bats etc. In absence of the same it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the interested witnesses in the background of active land dispute. 10. I am inclined to accept the said submission. 11. Hence giving benefit of doubt to the appellants, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 18.1.2002 and 22.1.2002 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge. Aurangabad in Sessions Trial No. 244 of 1994/50 of 2001 is set aside. The appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds. Appeal allowed.