PRABHU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 26.7.1991 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge V. Chapra (Saran) in Session Trial No. 258/86. Appellant No. 4, Sipahi Sah, appellant No. 5, Kanhaiya Sah and appellant No. 6 Dablu Sah were released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Appellant No. 1, Prabhu Sah was convicted under Sections 325 and 147 IPC and sentence to undergo RI for 3 years and 1 year. Appellant No. 2 Bishwanath Sah, appellant No. 3, Sheonath Sah and appellant No. 7 Indrasan Sah were convicted under Sections 323 and 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and 1 year.

(2.) THE prosecution case originated on the fardbayan of Bachani Devi (informant) alleging therein that on 24.4.1985 she found that garbage was stacked in front of her door. This lady raised alarm which attracted Indrasan Sah and he abused her for raising any grievance at the stack of garbage at her door. When the informant protested to the abuse, son of Indrasan Sah and other accused-persons who were members of the same family, gathered and started assaulting the informant. When the father in law of the informant and others came to the rescue of he informant, they were also subjected to assault by various accused-persons variously. Victim Gaya Sah was assaulted by appellant Prabhu Sah with bhala and other accused-appellants assaulted other members of the informant's family with hard and blunt substance.

(3.) SO far the evidence regarding the assault on the members of the informant's family is concerned, of course, I do not find any vital discrepancy or infirmity so as to belie the alleged occurrence. Enmity, of course, is admitted as it transpires from the record of the case. There may be possibility of false implication and it also may give good motive to commit such an occurrence which arose on sudden provocation. When the informant protested on the throwing of garbage, the reaction of the accused-appellants further suggested that it were they who threw garbage at the door of the informant. Accused-appellants were neighbours of the informant and, admittedly, they both parties are collateral. In such circumstances, probability of accused-persons committing the alleged occurrence cannot be ruled out.