DEOKI PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The Appellants have been convicted by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, by a judgment dated 21.3.1994 in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1989 by which he has convicted the Appellant No. 1 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and the Appellant No. 2 under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to three years whereas the Appellant No. 3 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to one year and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.4.1986 at 3.30 P.M. when the Informant was passing in the village, the accused persons variously armed came and assaulted the Informant and his father. The genesis of the occurrence was that at 7 or 8 A.M., the son of the Appellant Ram Swaroop Paswan had plucked some vegetables from the fields of the Informant and when the Informant had complained about the same to his father, the present occurrence took place after due premeditation. The prosecution in support of its case examined eight witnesses out of whom PW -1, PW -2, PW -3, PW -4 and PW -6 are eye witnesses whereas PW -7 is the Doctor and PW -8 is the Investigating Officer and PW -5 had been tendered. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, I find that even though PW -1 had specifically stated that he did not receive any injury on the waist and the alleged bullet injury on the finger of his right hand, the Doctor merely found fracture of nail and right middle finger which belied the prosecution case. Moreover, the Doctor did not find any injury on the person of Kari Devi, wife of PW -1. The story that all the accused persons had assaulted the Informant was also falsified by the Doctor's evidence and, therefore, their prosecution case does not appear to be trustworthy. Moreover, there are material contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses on the point of manner of occurrence as well as the genesis of the occurrence. In view of the discussion held above, I am of the view that the Appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges and, therefore, this Appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 107 of 1989/93 of 1989 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.