Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1386 (PAT)

Tuntun Dushadh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-05

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. It has been submitted that the appellant No. 2 died during pendency of the appeal and, therefore, his appeal has become infructuous. 'The appeal against him is dismissed as such. 2. As for surviving appellant No. 1 he has been convicted under Section 324, IPC and sentenced to R.I. for six months be a judgment dated 16.1.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1987/1 of 2001. 3. The case of the prosecution according to informant Sheo Paras Manjhi is that on 26.1.1983 while he was cutting jokes there was an altercation between his bhabhi and the wife of the appellant No. 2. The wife of the appellant No. 2 was abusing him, his bhabhi and his wife. His bhabhi and wife objected to it. At about 11 a.m. the next day the appellant No. 2 came and started hurling filthy language and abused him and his family members and thereafter both the appellants attacked him. Appellant No. 1 caught hold of him, whereas appellant No. 2 hurled a farsa blow on his left hand. Appellant No. 2 thereafter again assaulted him. The appellant No. 1 assaulted them, his mother and wife with garasa causing injuries on them. 4. During trial the prosecution examined five witnesses in all after which two Court witnesses were examined. PW1 Sheo Kali Devi has supported the case as an eye-witness. PW 2 Chandrama Prasad, PW 3 Suresh Lal and PW 4 Singhasan Manjhi have been declared hostile. PW 5 Sheo Paras Manjhi is the injured-Informant and an eye-witness. Court witness No. 1 is the compounder, who proved the injury reports of Sheo Kali Devi, Sheo Paras Dusadh and Sugaro Devi marked as Exhibits 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. Court witness No. 2 was an Advocate Clerk, who proved the requisitions and the case diary recorded by the Investigating Officer marked as Exhibits 4 and 4/1. 5. PW 1 Sheo Kalo Devi is the sister-in-law of the informant. She supported the fact that on the previous day there had been some jokes between the parties, which was not liked by the accused persons, whereafter this occurrence took place on the next day. PW 5, the informant stated the same version as what he had disclosed in the First Information Report. 6. She supported the fact that on the previous day there had been some jokes between the parties, which was not liked by the accused persons, whereafter this occurrence took place on the next day. PW 5, the informant stated the same version as what he had disclosed in the First Information Report. 6. I find that the important witnesses, who could objectively corroborate the prosecution case, have not been produced by the prosecution. Since the doctor had died, the defence did not get an opportunity to cross-examine him with regard to the nature of injuries. The Investigating Officer also was not examined. In the absence of any corroboration from independent sources, it would be highly unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of the interested witnesses. 7. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant No. 1 on 16.1.2002 by the Presiding Officer, 1st Additional Fast Track Court, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 7 of 1987/1 of 2001 is set aside. The appellant No. 1 is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds. Appeal allowed.