BHUTTO PASWAN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the appellant was prosecuted for the chqrges punishable under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, he suffered conviction only under Section 324. IPC and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of two Years.

(2.) Shorn of details the prosecution case launched on behest of Ram Sagar Paswan (PW 8) was that on 28th September. 1978 in the early morning of 8 a.m., while Ram Bahadur Thakur (PW 3) was shaving beard of Habbu Paswan near the tea siall of Munnu Poddar the appellant happened to come there who took Habbu Paswan to task for uprooting the crop from his field pursuant to which an altercation ensued between them and it was alleged that the appellant eventually took out a pistol and took recourse to firing causing injuries to Habbu Paswan and Ram Bahadur Thakur too suffered pellet injuries on his person. After the Police was set in motion with these accusation investigation commenced in course of which the Police Officer recorded statement of witnesses visited the place of occurrence got the injured clinically examined by the doctor 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 injured. Police Officer, doctor and other witnesses, who claimed themselves to be conversant with the facts of the incident and the trial Court while believing the witnesses examined at trial to be true did not record finding of guilt under Section 307, IPC, and Section 27 of the Arms Act found the appellant guilty under Section 324, IPC, and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) Though finding recorded by the trial Court is sought to be assailed on various grounds by the learned counsel for the appellant none of them appeared to be meritorious. It is urged that though the incident was shown to have happened near the tea stall of Monnu Poddar, who could have been a competent witness, he was not examined by the State. Non-examination of the wife of Habbu Paswan, who allegedly took the injured to the doctor, was also taken to be a ground to assail the bona-fide of the prosecution case. Posture of the assailant and also the injured, which allegedly improbabilities the injuries on the person of the injured, was also taken to be a ground to impeach the credibility of the witnesses. Non-production of cartridges by the Police Officer at trial and non-examination of the doctor who examined Habbu Paswan, were also the grounds on which the finding of guilt recorded by the trial Court has been challenged.