Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1397 (PAT)

Ram Bali Yadav v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.- It has been submitted on behalf of the appellants that the appellant No. 3 died during pendency of this appeal and. therefore, his appeal has become in-fructuous. It is dismissed as such. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 304, Part II, 323/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each in default of which further rigorous imprisonment for six months as also a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of which rigorous imprisonment for three months respectively in Sessions Trial No. 400 of 1991 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, 6th, Begusarai, by judgment dated 6.4.2002/8.4.2002. 3. The case of the prosecution according to Kailu Yadav is that appellants Ram Bali Yadav and Jhonti Yadav were plucking the maize crops since last fifteen days on account of which they were caught red handed which gave rise to an altercation between them. After the same, he came to his house and informed his brother, Ram Bahadur Yadav, regarding the theft at which the accused got enraged and started to abuse them. Thereafter, Ram Bali Yadav, Jhonti Yadav, Kanhai Yadav and Bhaglu Yadav began to assault. On alarm of Ram Bahadur, his wife, namely, Bimla Devi, with a child in her lap came there who was assaulted in course of occurrence due to which the child died instantaneously. Appellant No.1, Ram Bali Yadav, is said to have struck on the chest of the child. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses, out of whom, PW 1, Ram Bahadur Yadav, PW 2, Bimla Devi are the injured witnesses, PW 9, Kailu Yadav, is the informant. PW 1, Ram Bahadur Yadav, stated that on the date of occurrence his brother had caught hold of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 on account of them having stolen maize from his field at which an altercation arose between them. Later on, the accused persons came to his door and started to abuse and assault them. When his wife with a child in her lap came to the place of occurrence, the child was assaulted by the appellant No. 1 on account of which she died immediately. PW 2, Bimla Devi, is the mother of the child, who supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. When his wife with a child in her lap came to the place of occurrence, the child was assaulted by the appellant No. 1 on account of which she died immediately. PW 2, Bimla Devi, is the mother of the child, who supported the case of the prosecution in its entirety. PW 3, Mahadevi, PW 4, Ram Khelawan Yadav, PW 7, Khakhar Paswan, have also supported the prosecution story as given out by the prosecution witnesses PWs 1 and 2. PW 5, Mahabir Yadav, and PW 6 are formal witnesses. PW 8, Dr. Ram Ashsray Singh, found injuries on the person of the child which was the cause of her death. PW 9 is the informant whose evidence has been discussed earlier. PW 10, Ram Karan Choudhary, is a formal witness. 5. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that there is consistent statement that the accused persons came to the door of the informant and started abusing the prosecution party and when Bimla Devi came to intervene with her child in her lap, appellant. No. 1 assaulted the child due to which she died. 6. Considering the eye-witness account discussed above as also the Post-Mortem Examination Report which, corroborates the prosecution case, I would be of the opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond, all reasonable doubt. 7. In view of such, the appeal is dismissed. 8. However, so far the appellant Nos. 2 and 4 are concerned, since there is no allegation of them having assaulted the deceased, their sentence is reduced to one already undergone during trial. As for the appellant No. 1 he shall deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) in the Court below to be disbursed to the family of the deceased within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. In case, appellant No. 1 fails to deposit the amount, he shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. 9. On deposit of the fine amount, the Court below shall notice Bimla Devi and Ram Bahadur Yadav or their heirs and on proper identification shall disburse the fine amount of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) to them. 10. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification in the sentence as mentioned above. Appeal dismissed.