RAM BALAK RAUT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant No. 1 has been convicted Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and Appellant No. 2 has been convicted Under Section 307/34 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra in Sessions Trial No. 231 of 1990 by a judgment dated 21.9.1995.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 5.8.1988 when the informant (P.W.7) had gone out to wash his mouth, the Appellant No. 1 ordered to assault, on account of which the Appellant No. 2 fired at him, due to which he was injured.

(3.) During trial the prosecution has examined ten witnesses on its behalf. Out of whom, P.W.10 is formal in nature and had brought the X-ray plate, which had been marked Exhibit X for identification, whereas P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.6 and P.W.8 are hearsay witness P.W.1 is the uncle of the informant and alleged eye witness. P.W.6 is on the factum of the occurrence and that he had seen the Appellants when he had arrived at the place of occurrence after the same. P.W.5 is the brother of the informant and on the point of occurrence. P.W.7 is the informant himself. P.W.9 is the doctor, who had found multiple pellet injury on the left side of the chest and face and right side of sternum allegedly caused by fire arms, but the nature of injury was not given by him and the informant had been sent for further X-ray, but the doctor, who had conducted the X-ray, was not examined and merely the X-ray plate was produced before the court by the P.W.10. The Investigating Officer has been examined as court witness No. 1. The defence also examined one witness on the point that in fact the place of occurrence is some other and probably the occurrence had taken place on account of his illegal activities.