DIGEN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been convicted under Sections 323, 380, 147 and 148 IPC and sentenced to RI for one year by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar by a judgment dated 17.09.1994 in S.Tr. No. 62 of 1993. The case of the prosecution is that in attempt to commit theft the appellants also gave knife and hammer blows on account of which the wife of the informant lost four teeth.

(2.) INITIALLY the appellants were charged under Section 307/149 IPC but were sentenced as mentioned above. The prosecution examined six witnesses out of whom P.W. 1 is an independent witness but not an eye witness. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 are the police officers who investigated the case whereas P.W. 4 is the informant and P.W. 3 and P.W. 2 are the wife and son respectively of the informant. P.W. 1 is an independent witness who deposed that a dispute had arisen between the parties on account of plucking of mango fruits a day before the occurrence and the accused persons had been ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- but the appellants refused to pay whereafter the present occurrence took place.