Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 211 (PAT)

Osier Girl v. State of Bihar

2013-02-13

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT Heinant Kumar Srivastava, J.-- None appears on behalf of the appellants on repeated call. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is present. Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi is appointed amicus curiae for the appellants. 2. Heard Sri Arun Kumar Tripathi. learned counsel appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record. 3. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 05.03.2001 passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge. Motihart in Sessions Trial No. 230 of 1992 by which and whereunder he convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and furthermore appellant No. 1 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave benefit of Section 360 of the Cr PC to all the appellants and accordingly. all the appellants were directed to furnish a bond of rupees seven thousand with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of two years and furthermore. all the appellants were directed to maintain good conduct and furthermore the learned Additional Sessions Judge observed in the order of sentence that if any complaint received from the Probation Officer within the above stated period of two years. appropriate action would be taken against the appellants in the term of provision of law. 4. In brief, the prosecution case. is that on 22.11.1991 at about 10:00 a.m. informant. Baliram Sah gave his fardbeyan to officer in charge of Chakia Police Station in injured condition to this effect that on 21.11.1991 at about 07:00 p.m. while he was returning to his home on his hero bicycle appellants and some unknown persons stopped him and appellant No. 1 tried to open fire of his country made nalkatua but he missed the file and after that all the appellants and others mercilessly assaulted him with lathi and also snatched wrist watch as well as cash and when he became unconscious the appellants fled away from there along with his bicycle. The witnesses came there and took him to hospital where his treatment was done. 5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan Chakia P.S. Case No. 108 of 1991 under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly. formal first information report was drawn. The witnesses came there and took him to hospital where his treatment was done. 5. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan Chakia P.S. Case No. 108 of 1991 under Sections 341, 323, 379 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code was registered and accordingly. formal first information report was drawn. The matter was investigated by the police and after completion of investigation. police submitted charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 307 and other minor sections of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the offences was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in usual way. 6. The appellants were put on trial and accordingly. they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code whereas appellant No. 1 was separately charged for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 7. In course of trial Altogether, nine prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and prosecution also got exhibited some documents including the injury report of informant (PW 3). The statements of appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC in which they reiterated their innocence. The defence also examined two witnesses and got exhibited some documents. 8. The learned trial Court having relied upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses as well as documentary evidences available on the record convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner as stated above. 9. Learned counsel Sri Tripathi appearing for the appellants as amicus curiae challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that there was enmity between the parties and the appellants had also brought complaint case against the informant (PW 3) but learned trial Court having relied upon the testimony of prosecution witnesses passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order which is not in accordance with law. 10. On the other hand. learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order arguing that there are consistent statements of prosecution witnesses on the point of assault and furthermore. PW 3 has. specifically stated that he was assaulted by the appellants and the statement of PW 3 is corroborated by injury report of PW 3 which is Exhibit-3 and similarly. the PW 3. specifically stated that appellant No. 1 snatched his belongings and. PW 3 has. specifically stated that he was assaulted by the appellants and the statement of PW 3 is corroborated by injury report of PW 3 which is Exhibit-3 and similarly. the PW 3. specifically stated that appellant No. 1 snatched his belongings and. therefore the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. On perusal of evidences available on the record, I find that PW 3 supported his case and specifically, stated that he was assaulted by the appellants. The statement of PW 3 is corroborated by Exhibit-3. the injury report and PW 5. doctor, Devendra Kumar Sharma has supported this fact that on 21.11.1991. he examined PW 3 and found injuries on his person. Similarly. PW 3 has. specifically. stated that appellant. Ramlal Sah snatched his wrist watch whereas appellant. Osier Giri snatched his cycle and appellant. Mangal Sah took out rupees seven hundred from his pocket. So, the factum of snatching of cycle, cash and wrist watch is fully proved by PW 3. The PW I also supported this fact that on the alleged date of occurrence having heard the noise he went on the place of occurrence and found PW 3 lying in injured condition. PW 1 also claimed that he saw the appellants fleeing from there and at that time appellant No.1. Osier Giri was carrying cycle. Therefore, I find that prosecution, successfully. proved its case and the learned trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 341 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. So far as quantum of sentence is concerned. admittedly the appellants were directed to be released on furnishing bonds of rupees seven thousand with two sureties of the like amount each for a period of two years and there is nothing on the record to show that between the aforesaid period of two years any complaint was received against the appellants from the probation officer. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere into the order of sentence. 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, this criminal appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence order are Hereby, confirmed. Appeal dismissed.