Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1398 (PAT)

Shyam Kumar Singh @ Lal Singh v. State of Bihar

2013-12-06

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellants have been convicted under Sections 324, 323 and 341, IPC and directed to furnish a security bond of Rs.1,000/- to maintain peace for a period of one year by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 55 of 1995/48 of 2001 by a judgment and order dated 22.1.2002. 2. The case of the informant, Bechan Pandit is that on 5.10.1994 while he was in the clinic of the Doctor at 11 a.m. he had gone to Madhubani Court, in a case to depose against the present appellants but appellant Shayam Kumar Singh @ Lal Singh was absent. He got recorded his statement whereafter he returned home. On the same day at about 3 p.m. the appellants armed with rods surrounded him and assaulted him since he had deposed against the accused persons and also committed theft of his personal belongings. 3. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses out of whom PW 9 is the Doctor, Y.K. Sharma who examined the injured and proved the injury reports. He found simple injuries on his person all caused by hard and blunt substance. 4. PW 8, Shashishekhar Thakur, the Investigating Officer who also found objective marks of injuries on the person of the informant. 5. PW 7, Bechan Pandit is the informant stated that when he reached the place of occurrence there was an altercation going on between the parties in course of which the informant was assaulted with farsa. 6. PW 2 and PW 3 have been declared hostile. 7. PW 4, Samir Kumar Singh has stated that he was in litigating terms with the appellants and on the date of occurrence the informant was assaulted. 8. PW 5, Kaushal Kishore Singh also stated that Shyam Kumar Singh gave a farsa blow on the informant. He conceded that there was enmity between him and the appellants. 9. PW 6, Jogi Pandit corroborated the prosecution case. PW 7, Bechan Pandit has given the same version as given out in the fardbeyan without any major contradictions. 10. The defence also examined one witness on its behalf to show that there was series of litigations between the parties. 11. 9. PW 6, Jogi Pandit corroborated the prosecution case. PW 7, Bechan Pandit has given the same version as given out in the fardbeyan without any major contradictions. 10. The defence also examined one witness on its behalf to show that there was series of litigations between the parties. 11. The counsel for the appellant submits that in view of the inimical terms of dispute which is admitted on the face of the records and also exhibited by the defence it would be unsafe to rely on the sole testimony of interested witnesses. 12. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid submission raised on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants on 22.1.2002 by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Madhubani in S.Tr. No. 55 of 1995/48 of 2001 is set aside. The appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds. Appeal allowed.