1
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.223 of 1997
[Appeal against the judgment and order dated
29.7.1997 and 30.7.1997 passed by the 6 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.107 of
1993/ 590 of 1992]
1. Ram Chandra Yadav S/o Jitan Yadav
2. Sanjay Yadav S/o Ram Chandra Yadav
3. Prabhu Sao S/o Munshi Sao, all residents of village
Nagwagarh, Tola Bhuiya Bigha, P.S. Gurua, District Gaya
.......................... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar .............. Respondent
For the Appellants : Mr. S. Rizwanul Haque, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Choubey Jawahar, Addl. P.P.
---------
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Anjana All the appellants have been convicted u/s.307/34 I.P.C.
Prakash, J:
and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and appellant no.1 has
further been convicted u/s.324 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for
three years as also the appellant no.2 has been convicted u/s.325
and sentenced to R.I. for five years whereas appellant no.3 has
been convicted u/s.323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year
by a judgment dated 29.7.1997 and 30.7.1997 passed by the 6 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Trial No.107 of
1993/ 590 of 1992.
2. The case of the prosecution according to P.W.4
Kauleshwar Rajak is that on 6.10.1991 while he was at his paddy
fields, he saw the accused persons draining out irrigational water
from his field by making a hole in the ridge, at which he attempted
to stop them. At this, all the accused persons got enraged and
2
assaulted him. Ram Chandra Yadav is said to have welded a
farsa blow, which hit him on his left fore arm, whereas appellant
Sanjay Yadav is said to have hit him over his arm and leg and
when the informant fell down Prabhu Sao also assaulted him with
a lathi. The informant was then removed to the Hospital. It was
mentioned in the First Information Report that there was land
dispute between the parties.
3. On behalf of the prosecution ten witnesses were
examined during trial. Out of whom, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are
formal witnesses. P.W.1 Rampati Choudhary even though
attempted to depose as an eye witness conceded in his cross
examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, he
saw the informant having fallen down and, therefore, evidently he
was not an eye witness. P.W.2 Dhananjay Narain Singh used to
reside in the adjacent village and he conceded in his cross
examination that he had deposed in favour of the informant in an
earlier criminal case. P.W.3 Shyam Sundar Kumar is the son of
the informant, whereas P.W.8 Muneshwar Rajak is his brother.
4. From the evidence of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.8, I find
that they have consistently stated that while the informant was
standing in his field, he saw the accused persons cutting the ridge
of his field and irrigating their lands, to which the informant
protested and that the three accused persons variously assaulted
him. Dr. Pramod Kumar Singh, who deposed as P.W.6, stated that
he found two injuries on the person of the informant but while one
of them was simple the other was grievous. No doubt he did not
3
fully corroborate the prosecution case since there was an
allegation of at least three assaults having been made by the
appellants. The background of the land dispute is conceded even
on the date of occurrence a dispute had taken place with regard to
irrigational facility.
5. On a careful consideration of the evidence and
circumstances of the case brought on record by the prosecution,
there is no manner of doubt and the appellants had participated in
the assault on the informant but the way the occurrence took place
in the background of land dispute and altercation between the
parties as also that there was no repetition of assault and only two
injuries were sustained by the injured, I am not inclined to uphold
the conviction of the appellants u/s.307/34 I.P.C. Hence they are
acquitted of the charge u/s.307/34 I.P.C. However, the appellants
are convicted u/s.324/34 and 325/34 and 323/34 I.P.C. but the
period of sentence is modified to the one they have already
undergone during trial.
5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid
modifications in conviction and sentence.
( Anjana Prakash, J. )
Patna High Court
Dated, 14th July, 2011.
NAFR/ Narendra/
