Vijay Dusadh vs State Of Bihar on 4 April, 2011

                            Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.303 OF 1994
                         [Appeal against the judgment and order dated
                         11.8.1994 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions
                         Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.81 of 1993/ 253 of
                         1986]

              VIJAY DUSADH SON OF HARI KISHUN DUSADH, RESIDENT OF
              VILLAGE MORAIL, POLICE STATION BODH GAYA, DISTRICT GAYA
                        ..........................                                 Appellant
                                Versus
                       THE STATE OF BIHAR ---------------------- Respondent

                         For the Appellant : Mr. Rama Singh, Advocate
                         For the Respondent : Mr. J. K. Singh, Addl. P.P.
                                                  ---------

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH

Anjana The appellant has been convicted u/s. 326 I.P.C. and 27
Prakash, J:

of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for four years and one year

respectively by a judgment dated 11.8.1994 passed by the 5th

Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.81 of 1993/

253 of 1986.

The prosecution case is that on 25.5.1983 at about 9

P.M. the appellant fired at the informant on his right thigh to

pressurize him to withdraw the case filed by him. The appellant

was charged initially u/s.307 I.P.C. but sentenced to one u/s.326

I.P.C.

During trial, the prosecution has examined in all seven

witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.6 and P.W.7 did not support the

prosecution case and P.W.2 is the nephew of the informant but

not an eye witness, whereas the P.W.3 is the wife of the
-2-

informant and P.W.4 is the informant himself. P.W.5 is the doctor,

who examined the injured.

It has been argued that the Investigating Officer of the

case has not been examined nor has any independent witness

been examined by way of corroboration of the case of the

informant. The further submission is that the appellant had

already remained in custody since for about three years nine

months.

However, considering that P.W.4 was consistent on the

point of shooting by the appellant on him, I am not inclined to

interfere in the matter. Hence the appeal is dismissed with

modification in sentence to the one already undergone by the

appellant.

With these modifications, the appeal is dismissed.

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