BALMIKI SINGH Vs. RAM CHANDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -These appeals have been filed by the informant questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the respondents 1 and 2. Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. Additionally, respondents were convicted for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short 'Arms Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years.

(2.) Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows : On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to see his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree armed with Garasa and country made rifle. The appellants began to abuse him, which was protested by the informant. Thereupon, accused-Ramchandra ordered his son accused-Shravan to fire and Shravan fired upon the informant which hit his right chest. It has been stated that prior to this occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in between the informant and the accused persons on use of irrigational water. The informant after sustaining injuries sat down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh Medical Hospital where he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by the S.I. of Police. On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. Finally the trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.

(3.) 8 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version of whom P.Ws. 1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eye-witnesses. But ultimately it was noted that P.Ws. 1 and 5 were not eye-witnesses and the prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PW-6, the injured informant. The Trial Court found the evidence to be cogent and accordingly sentenced the accused persons.