JINESHWAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the appellant was prosecuted for the charges punishable under sections 307, and 337/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 27 of the Arms Act, he suffered conviction only under section 307 IPC on exoneration of the rest charges and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of four years on that count.

(2.) FACTUAL matrix ''the prosecution was launched on behest of Rameshwar Pandit (P.W. 5), on accusation that though the appellant had been torturing him since past it was on 10th April, 1988, that he made abortive attempt to break open the door of his house and on his failure, pelted brick bats causing injury to Pachiya Devi and after the appellant took recourse to firing, Ramdeo Pandit (P.W. 1) suffered pellet injury on palm of his right hand. After the Police was set in motion on these accusations investigation commenced in course of which the Investigating Officer recorded statement of the witnesses under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, visited the place of occurrence, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor, seized empty shells of cartridges from the place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial, the State examined altogether nine witnesses including two injured, the Police Officer and also a compounder, who placed the injury report (Exhibit 3 series) on record and also host of other witnesses, who stated to be conversant with the facts of the incident and the trial court on appreciation of evidences placed on record, while acquitted the appellant of the charges under sections 337/34 IPC and also section 27 of 307 IPC and sentenced him in the manner stated above.

(3.) CONTENTIONS were raised that though other injured claimed to have identified the appellant in the flash light of torch since it was a dark night, it was most unlikely that the appellant would be identified as if the flash light was focussed pointedly at him with the aim of identification and the limb of the argument pressed into service on behalf of the appellant was that the prosecution was launched against appellant in the year 1988 and since the appellant has suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about 14 years, a lenient view be taken by the Court while awarding sentence on him and it would be hard and unjust for the appellant to suffer imprisonment after efflux of 14 years. Learned counsel for the State and also the informant have sought to support the findings recorded by the trial court.