HASIMUDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Written report of the informant Sk. Chuttu @ Bhuttu is made basis for the F.I.R. which in short is that on 18.1.1992 at about 9.30 PM there cropped up a quarrel in between the informant and the appellant alongwith Jainuddin for land. They abused which the informant protested. Ashiruddin ordered to teach a lesson complying thereon all the accused persons entered informant's courtyard, surrounded him, attempted to cause assault, his wife Gulejan with a baby in her lap came, intervened just to rescue her husband which was reacted by the accused-appellant in pushing her to down alongwith her child, result was falling down of the child on earth and her death, thereafter accused persons including this appellant left the place. After concluding the trial, appellant is only convicted for the offence under Sections 323 and 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code, by passing impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence validity of which has been questioned through filing of this appeal.

(2.) In all six witnesses were examined. They are P.W. 1 Sk. Jalaluddin, P.W. 2 Chuttu @ Bhuttu informant of the case, P.W. 3 Samiruddin brother of the informant, P.W. 4 Gulejan wife of the informant, P.W. 5 Doctor and P.W. 6 the I.O. of the case.

(3.) All the four material witnesses namely P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are constant on the point that Gulejan was pushed by this appellant. She fell down with her child in lap which resulted into the death of the child. They are from the same family, may be said interested raised in the trial court also but rightly has been replied that it was 9.30 PM of the month of January in rural area, possibility of coming of others was rare so, there was no reason to disbelieve or doubt these witnesses about pushing the lady which has been taken for constituting offence under Sections 323 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Doctor is on the point of death of the child who conducted post mortem on dead body of the child and I.O. of the case is on the point that investigation was fair and in their statement (examination-in-chief or cross-examination) also no infirmity is found.