High Court Patna High Court

Sanjay Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2011

Patna High Court
Sanjay Sharma vs State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2011
Author: Smt. Anjana Prakash
                         Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.308 OF 1994
                     [Appeal against the judgment and order dated
                     23.8.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge
                     II, Patna in Sessions Trial No.763 of 1989]

              SANJAY SHARMA SON OF SURESH SHARMA, RESIDENT OF
              VILLAGE MOHAMMADPUR, POLICE STATION BIKRAM, DISTRICT
              PATNA                           .......................... Appellant
                              Versus
                      THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------------------- Respondent

                      For the Appellant : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate
                      For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P.
                                               ---------

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH

Anjana The appellant has been convicted u/s. 324 I.P.C. and 27
Prakash, J:

of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for two years under each

count by a judgment dated 23.8.1994 passed by the Additional

Sessions Judge II, Patna in Sessions Trial No.763 of 1989.

The prosecution case is that on 11.8.1988 an altercation

arose between the parties which escalated to the extent that the

appellant came with the pistol and fired at the informant, on

account of which she was hurt in both the legs.

The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in all. Out

of whom, P.W.1, P.w.4 and P.W.5 are alleged to have come right

after the occurrence, whereas the P.W.2 is the informant. P.W.8

is a formal witness and P.W.3 and P.W.6 are non-F.I.R. eye

witnesses and P.W.7 is the doctor, who examined the injured.

On going through the evidence of the material witnesses,
-2-

I find that the genesis of the occurrence has not been

enumerated by the prosecution and there is no objective

evidence with regard to recovery of the pellets from the place of

occurrence. The place of occurrence as described P.W.4 and

P.W.5 was not accessible to the accused persons and, therefore,

it is difficult to accept that the appellants were present at the

place of occurrence on the day described. Further, it also appears

that all the eye witnesses belonged to the same family and not a

single independent witness has been examined. The fact of land

dispute between the parties is not denied.

In the conclusion, this appeal is allowed and the order of

conviction and sentence passed against the appellant on

23.8.1994 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge II, Patna in

Sessions Trial No.763 of 1989 is set aside.

( Anjana Prakash, J. )
Patna High Court
Dated, 4th April, 2011.
NAFR/ Narendra/