CHANDESHWARI SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard The Appellants have been convicted under Sections 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 1991/52 of 1991 and Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1992(s)/1 of 1992 and sentenced to ten years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 28.1.1990 on account of a land dispsute between the parties while irrigation was taking place, the Appellants variously armed came to the place of occurrence (Fields) and on the orders of Appellant No. 12, Appellant No. 11 and Appellant No. 7, Appellant Parmeshwari Sah (A -2) inflicted a spear blow on the neck of Prithwi Sah as a result of which he fell down and thereafter the rest of the accused persons have also assaulted him. The Appellant No. 3 is also said to have assaulted the Informant. The defence of the Appellant was that in fact, a free fight had taken place between the parties and there was a counter version of this occurrence by way of Triveniganj P.S. Case No. 6 of 1990 in which Appellant Shivan Sah (A -6) and Chandeshwari Sah (A -1) were also assaulted and removed to the Hospital in an unconscious stage. The prosecution to prove its case, examined ten witnesses out of whom PW -3, PW -8 and PW -9 are formal witnesses whereas PW - 6 is the Doctor who conducted post mortem on the deceased and PW -7 is the other Doctor who examined injured PWs -4 and 5, the accused Shiban Sah, Parmeshwari Sah and Chandeshwari Sah. PW -10 is the Investigating Officer of the case whereas PW -5 is the Informant and PW -4 is the injured witness and PWs -1 and 2 are material eye witnesses. The defence also examined three witnesses apart from having brought on record a large number of documents with regard to the ownership of the lands in question. DW -1 is on the point of relationship of the Informant with witness Badri Sah whereas DW -2 and 3 are formal witnesses who proved the Bed -head tickets of the injured accused. Undoubtedly, the Appellants had proved certain documents which could very well substantiate the fact that the land in question was in possession of the Appellants and it was the prosecution which was the aggressor.

(3.) Further, I find that the prosecution has not explained the injuries on the persons of the three accused persons and, therefore, have not discharged their duty of bringing the true case before the Court. This casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case. Moreoever, the witnesses appear to be interested and have materially contradicted each other on the manner of occurrence as well as the genesis.