PRABHU KUMHAR AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Six Appellants have preferred the present appeal to question the correctness of judgment dated the 23rd March, 1994 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge - XI, Gaya in S.T. No. 498 of 1990 / 81 of 1991. By the impugned judgment, while the Appellants were acquitted under Sections 307/149 IPC, three of them, namely, Prabhu Kumhar, Tileshwar Kumhar and Nanhak Kumhar were convicted under Sections 148 and 324 IPC, the remaining three Appellants were convicted of offences under Sections 147 and 323 IPC. After having heard the Appellants on sentence on the same day, Appellants Prabhu Kumhar, Tileshwar Kumhar and Nanhak Kumhar were directed to suffer RI for three years under Section 324 IPC and were directed to pay a fine of rupees one thousand for their conviction under Section 148 IPC and in default of payment of fine, each of them were directed to suffer RI for six months. Remaining three Appellants were directed to suffer RI for one year under Section 323 IPC and to pay a fine of Rupees five hundred each under Section 147 IPC else, to suffer RI for three months.

(2.) The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of P.W.3 Satyendra Singh, in which he stated that he heard halla coming from northern side of the house of Alakhdeo Singh (not examined on account of being dead) and as such he and his brother Yogendra Singh (P.W. 6) went there and found Alakhdeo Singh surrounded by the accused persons who were armed with lathi, bhala and garasa. When the informant P.W. 3 and his brother P.W. 6 attempted to intervene, Prabhu Kumhar ordered to assault both the witnesses and himself gave a bhala blow to P.W. 6 Yogendra Singh, which hit his right chest, as a result of which he fell down and became unconscious. Appellant Tileshwar Kumhar gave a garasa blow on the head of the informant which he attempted to ward off by raising his hands and as such it caused injuries on his arms. Other remaining Appellants assaulted the informant and his brother with lathi. As regards the genesis of the occurrence, it was alleged that the rain water from the house of the informant used to flow through the fields of the accused persons who objected to it on that particular day as earlier also and, the occurrence took place on that account.

(3.) It appears from the perusal of the judgment that out of a total number of eight witnesses examined, P.W. 1 was formal, P.W. 2 was not believed by the trial court as an eye witness as he was found having arrived at the place of occurrence after the injured had received the injury of assault and were lying on the ground. P.W. 4 was declared hostile by the prosecution whereas P.W. 7 was tendered. P.W. 8 was the doctor who had examined P. Ws 3 and 6, the informant and his brother, both of whom, supported the prosecution story.