RAMPATI CHAURASIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHILE all the appellants suffered conviction under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years, Ram Brat Prasad Chourasia suffered conviction also under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term, of three months. Suresh Chourasia, Lakhan Mahto, Ram Pati Chourasia, Awadhesh Chourasia, Hari Chourasia, Schua Chourasia, Naresh Chourasia and Ram Prit Chourasia suffered conviction also under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years each, Suresh Chourasia suffered conviction also under Section 27 of the Arms Act but for that, no sentence was shown to have been assigned in the judgment. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE factual matrix. In the night of 17th April, 1978, it is alleged that while Ram Jatan Chourasia, P.W. 5, was gossipings with his family members and also relations who had visited his house that night, about some land dispute which was pending with Lakhan Mahto, the appellants came variously armed and after breaking door planks got their access in the inner apartment of the house and assaulted house inmates including Vijay Chourasia, son-in-law of the informant and also Swarath Chourasia who had come to his house that night. THE Police Officer on receipt of information about some incident happening in the village, rushed there and recorded statement of Ram Swarath Prasad Chourasia (P.W. 6), pursuant to which investigation commenced and during investigation the police recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, sent the injured to the doctor forclinically examination, secured injury reports and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court, In the eventual trial that commenced, the State examined altogether nine witnesses including the doctor who examined the injured, the Police Officer who carried out investigation of the incident the injured and also those who claimed to be present at the relevant time of the incident in the house.

(3.) THOUGH large number of persons have been arrayed as accused, on meticulous appreciation of evidences of the witnesses, I have noticed that against Awadhesh Prasad Chourasia, there was only one identification, and similar was the case with Hari Chourasia against whom there was identification of only two witnesses, though a number of witnesses were examined at trial, some of whom also claimed to be injured. We have the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 6 who can be treated to be ocular witnesses to the incident, leaving evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 5 who did not claim to have witnessed assault on other persons. Some of the witnesses have been making omnibus accusation against the assailants about they assaulting the family members and the strangers who had come that night. There has been evidence of P.W. 2 suggesting Ram Pati Chourasia to be the assailant of Vijay Chourasia and Daimanti Devi. Against Ram Pati Chourasia, there has been evidence of P.W. 3 suggesting him to be the assailant of Swarath Chourasia and Daimanti Devi, the evidence of P.W. 6 suggesting him to be his assailant. Against Hari Prasad Chourasia and Ram Barat Chourasia, there has been evidence of P.W. 6 only suggesting them to be his assailants. The conclusion that would follow from appreciation of these evidences is that while against Ram Pati Chourasia, there has been evidence of six witnesses who claimed to be ocular, suggesting him to be the assailant of others, there has been evidence of only one witness suggesting Hari Prasad Chourasia and Ram Barat Chourasia to be the assailant of Ram Swarath Chourasia. THOUGH against appellant Hari Chourasia, there has been solitary evidence, the doctor who clinically examined Ram Swarath Chourasia noticed corresponding injury on his person of which Hari Chourasia was suggested to be the author. Similar was the case with Ram Barat Prasad Chourasia also in whose case though there was solitary testimony of P.W. 6, the doctor who clinically examined him, noticed corresponding injury on his person of which Ram Barat Prasad Chourasia was suggested to be the author.