JAWAHAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has been convicted u/s.307 and 325 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for seven years and five years respectively by a judgment dated 29.1.1996 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Patna in Sessions Trial No.558 of 1992.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 3.10.1991 at about 3 P.M. while the informant (P.W.3) was returning to his house, the appellant without any provocation assaulted him with lathi, on account of which he sustained injuries on his head. P.W.1 and P.W.2 (who happens to be his father) arrived at the place of occurrence on his hulla, at which the appellant fled away. The reason for the occurrence is a dispute over irrigation of the field.

(3.) During trial, the prosecution has examined eight witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.1 is corroborative witness along with the P.W.2, the father of the informant. P.W.3 is the informant and -2- the injured himself, whereas P.W.4 is the doctor, who examined the injured at P.M.C.H. P.W.5 is the Investigating Officer and P.W.6 is the formal Police Officer, who recorded the fard beyan of P.W.3. P.W.7 is the doctor, who initially examined the injured at Masaurhi and P.W.8 is formal witness. The occurrence took place on 3.10.1991, whereas the fard beyan was given on 7.10.1991. P.W.3, the informant, has stated that when he was assaulted by the appellant, he became unconscious and he regained his sense on 6.10.1991, where after his fard beyan was recorded on the next day at 4 P.M. However, the doctor, who was examined as P.W.7 and P.W.4 have not stated that the informant was unconscious till 6.10.1991. Moreover, P.W.2 is the father of informant and had more or less witnessed the occurrence and, therefore, the delay in giving information about the occurrence, in my opinion, is fatal to the prosecution.