Loading...

Preman Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2011

Patna High Court
Preman Rai & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 21 June, 2011
Author: Smt. Anjana Prakash
                        Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.312 OF 1994
                    [Appeal against the judgment and order dated
                    31.8.1994 passed by the Sessions Judge, Saran,
                    Chapra in Sessions Trial No.24 of 1994]

              1.PREMAN RAI
              2.SINDHU RAI
              3.SIYARAM RAI
              4.KRISHNA RAI, SONS OF DEO SHARAN RAI, RESIDENTS OF
                VILL. NAYA PANNAPUR, TOLE NAW DIARA, P.S. AKILPUR,
                DIST. PATNA, AT PRESENT RESIDING AT VILLAGE
                CHAKIA, P.S. MAKER, DIST. SARAN, CHHAPRA (ACCUSED)
                                      ..........................           Appellants
                                Versus
               THE STATE OF BIHAR                 .............. Respondent

                    For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Kishore Singh, Advocate
                                         Mr. Sushil Kumar, Advocate
                    For the Respondent : Mrs. Indubala Pandey, Addl. P.P.
                                             ---------

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH

Anjana The appellant nos.1 and 2 have been convicted
Prakash, J:

u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year, whereas

appellant nos.3 and 4 have been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and

sentenced to R.I. for six months by a judgment dated 31.8.1994

passed by the Sessions Judge, Saran, Chapra in Sessions Trial

No.24 of 1994.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 4.12.1993 on

account of an earlier dispute between the accused they abused

the informant and thereafter the appellant nos.1 and 2 armed

with chhura and appellant nos.3 and 4 armed with lathies came

to his door and assaulted the informant.

-2-

3. During trial the prosecution has examined seven

witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.5 is the informant, whereas

P.W.1 is his father and P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have deposed

as eye witnesses. P.W.6 is the doctor, who had examined the

injured, whereas P.W.7 is the Investigating Officer.

4. Initially the appellants were charged u/s.307/34

I.P.C. but they were acquitted of the charges since the Trial

Court was of the view that the injuries have not been inflicted

for causing the death of the informant and were convicted as

mentioned above.

5. On going through the evidence of the eye witnesses

as well as the doctor and the Investigating Officer, I find that the

prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond all

reasonable doubt, even though minor discrepancies had been

found by the doctor with nature of injuries.

6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed but the

sentence is modified to the one that has already undergone by

the appellants during trial.

( Anjana Prakash, J. )
Patna High Court
Dated, 21st June, 2011.
NAFR/ Narendra/

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information