Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.117 OF 1996
(Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.1996 passed
by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ara, in Sessions Trial No. 355
of 1985)
*******
1. RAM KISHUN TURHA, SON OF BHOLA TURHA
2. SHRI BHAGWAN TURHA
3. BHUTANI TURHA
BOTH SONS OF RAM KISHUN TURHA.
4. JODHA TURHA @ AYODHYA TURHA
5. JADU TURHA
6. KHARKAT TURHA @ KARKAT TURHA
ALL SONS OF BAIJ NATH TURHA
ALL RESIENTS OF VILLAGE GARAHNI, P.S. CHARPOKHARI,
DISTT. BHOJPUR AT ARRAH.
—— APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR ———RESPONDENT
******
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Chandra Singh, Advocate.
For the State : Miss. Gulnar Begum, A.P.P.
******
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH
Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants have been convicted under Section
307/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to four
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/- each to be paid
to the Informant and a further sentence of one year under Section
148 of the Indian Penal Code by a Judgment dated 31.5.1996
passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ara, in connection
with Sessions Trial No. 355 of 1985.
2. The case of the prosecution according to the
Informant PW-4 Devnandan Turha was that when he along with his
sons PW-1 and PW-2 was returning from the house of his brother,
the accused persons variously armed surrounded them and also
2
assaulted them on account of a fishing dispute for which earlier a
case had been instituted.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined seven
witnesses out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 are the sons of Informant
PW-4 and they are eye witnesses. PW-3 is a witness who went at
place of occurrence and saw the accused persons fleeing away
from there as also the three injured. PW-7 is the Investigating
Officer whereas PW-6 is the Doctor who examined the three
injured.
4. The defence on its behalf examined one witness on
the point that there was a counter version of the occurrence in
which the son of the Appellant No. 4 along with others had been
seriously injured.
5. On going through the evidence of the three eye
witnesses, I find that there is complete denial of any counter
version. Moreover, from the evidence of PW-6 I find that the
Informant had sustained one grievous injury on his ulna which was
fractured. However, from the manner of occurrence it is difficult to
deduce that the assault by the accused persons was intended to
cause death of the three injured. In the result, all the Appellants
are acquitted of the charge under Section 307/34 of the Indian
Penal Code. However, since there is specific allegation against the
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 of having caused the grievous injury of the
Informant, they are convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced to the period already undergone by them
during trial. The conviction of the Appellant under Section 148 of
3
the Indian Penal Code is maintained but the sentence is modified to
the period already undergone by them during trial.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with aforesaid
modifications.
(Anjana Prakash, J.)
Patna High Court,Patna
Dated, the 24th June, 2011.
NAFR/S.ALI.
