Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 10 OF 1995
In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) and
389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
************
Krishna Ram, S/o Sri Jagarnath Ram, R/o Village-
Dhanawati, Police Station-Siwan Mofassil, District-Siwan.
……(Appellant)
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR——-(Respondent)
*************
For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP.
**************
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section
304 Part II IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by a
judgment dated 18.01.1995 passed by the 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 269 of 1993.
The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.1992
while the villagers were watching a video show the electricity
was disconnected on account of which the accused persons
came out from their house and began to abuse to which the
informant’s brother Krishna Ram protested at which the
appellant is said to have given single “Chhura” blow on the
stomach of the deceased who later died. The charge-sheet
was submitted under Section 302/34 IPC and the appellant
and others were also charged under Section 302/34 IPC but
convicted as noted above.
The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses
out of whom P.W 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are
formal witnesses whereas P.W. 4 is the informant and P.W. 6
is the Doctor who held the post-mortem examination. P.W. 5
is the full brother of the deceased and even though he
2
deposed on the manner of occurrence as an eye witness he
was disbelieved by the Trial Court.
The conviction of the appellant solely relied on eye-
witness of P.W. 4, the informant. The same is being assailed
by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that in cross-
examination he has stated that when he came to the place of
occurrence he had seen his brother injured with and,
therefore, he is not an eye-witness.
However, this Court is not inclined to take out a
single sentence of P.W. 4 in judging the eye-witness account
given by him and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to
reject him as an eye-witness.
In view of the consistent statement of P.W. 4 as
well as the Doctor who corroborated the injuries sustained by
the deceased, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment
under appeal.
However, in the facts of the case the conviction of
the appellant is converted to one under Section 326 IPC and
he is sentenced to a period already undergone by him. The
appeal is dismissed with the modifications as noted above.
Further, the appellant (if alive) is directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the family of the deceased within a
period of eight weeks of receipt of notices from the Trial Court
and in case he fails to do so he shall undergo an
imprisonment of six months RI.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Patna High Court,
Patna,
Dated, the 18th April, 2011.
NAFR/Vikash/-
