LAUHAR SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A prosecution was launched against Moti Sah, Jai Sah and the appellant on behest of Awadhesh Sah (PW 6) with accusation that on 10th August, 1985, after an altercation ensued between mother of Awadhesh Sah and Moti Sah with regard to exchange of commodities between them, on resistance by Awadhesh Sah, the appellant dealt blows on the head and right shoulder of Awadhesh Sah and when Dinesh Prasad (deceased) came for rescue, he too suffered injuries on head at the hands of Jai Sah, pursuant to which, station diary entry was recorded at the police station and the FIR was eventually drawn up with the above accusations, and investigation commenced. During investigation, the Police recorded statement of witnesses, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor, inspected place of occurrence and after Dinesh Prasad succumbed to the injury sustained by him, got autopsy held by the doctor, and on conclusion of investigation laid charge -sheet against the appellant and Moti Sah before the Court, showing Jai Sah absconder.

(2.) IN the trial that commenced, the State examined altogether 10 witnesses including two doctors who examined injuries on the person of the deceased, Dinesh Prasad and also the doctor who examined injuries on Awadhesh Sah PW 6, the Investigating Officer, the informant, his mother and host of other witnesses, including Ram Niwas Sah PW 1, Narayan Sah PW 3, Raghuwar Sah PW 4, Badamiya Devi PW 5 and Awadhesh Sah PW 6 who claimed to be ocular witnesses to the incident. Awadhesh Sah PW 6 was the person who set the police in motion and he would reiterate his early version rendered before the police about appellant assaulting him with lathi on head and also on right shoulder. He would saddle the appellant also for assaulting Dinesh Prasad on his head, and similar narrations were made also by PWs 3, 4 and 5 in most coherent terms. The genesis of the incident had been paltry dispute between Badamiya Devi PW 5, mother of PW 6 and Moti Sah, with regard to exchange of commodities between two families which was usual between them. No previous enmity between the family was even imputed by the State to make out a case of false implication of the appellant.

(3.) THE death, in estimation of the doctor, was caused by head injury caused by hard and blunt substance and all the six injuries were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death.