BHAGELU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behest of Janki Mali (PW 10), while Bhagelu Sah was prosecuted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Fulena Sah was prosecuted for the offence under Section 325, IPC, all the four appellants including Bhagelu Sah, Fulena Sah, Haricharan Sah and Dhanaj Sah were also prosecuted for the offence under Sections 452 and 323, IPC.

(2.) The factual matrix - As the appellants had put nad and khunti allegedly on the premises of Janki Mali, an altercation ensued between them preceding the time of incident, and it was alleged that shortly thereafter, in the night, at about 9 p.m. the appellants came on his premises threw night meal and on protest assaulted him. It was also alleged that while Bira Mali suffered injuries at the hands of Fulena who dealt lathi blows on him. Bhagelu Sah threw acid on the person of Paras Mali for which he suffered burn injury on his person. The family members too were assaulted by them and on these accusations, the police was set in motion, pursuant to which investigation commenced. During investigation, Police Officer recorded statements of witnesses under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited place of occurrence, got the injured examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. The appellants on eventual commitment of the case to the Court of Session, were put on trial. Altogether 12 witnesses were examined, including the injured, Police Officer and one formal witness and host of other witnesses. The defence too examined two witnesses ostensibly to counter allegations attributed to the appellants. The defence of the appellants both before the trial Court and this Court had been that Paras Mali suffered burn injuries on his person due to fall of boiled water on his person during scuffle between the family members, and the trial Court on consideration of the evidence placed on the record, while negatived contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, finding Bhagelu Sah guilty under S. 324, IPC, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year. All the appellants suffered conviction also under Ss. 323 and 452, IPC and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three months and two years respectively on these counts. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has taken me to the evidences of the witnesses placed on the record and it is sought to be urged that though the witnesses were narrating before the Court about Bhagelu Sah pouring acid on the person of Paras Mali, even though the doctor had not been examined at trial, the trial Court rushed to an erroneous conclusion and found him guilty under S. 324, IPC. Contentions were raised that though the doctor was not examined at trial, the injury report, of which Dr. R. B. Choudhary was shown to be the author, was placed on the record with the aid of the evidence of Gauri Shankar Prasad (P.W. 12) and, even those injury report if for collateral purposes, be taken into consideration, it would suggest that the doctor, who examined the injured, had noticed burn injury caused by boiled water. As for conviction of the appellants under S. 452, IPC, it is sought to be urged that even when there was no good evidence about the appellants having committed house trespass, they suffered conviction under S. 452, IPC and on this score my attention has been drawn to the definition of the house trespass as enjoined under Section 442, IPC, which runs as follows :-