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/
