BHOLA BARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appellants have been convicted under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 11.8.1981 at 9.30 A.M. a quarrel started between the informant and the appellants who are Gotia in connection with entrance door of the house. Both the appellants were putting obstruction on the entrance of the house. It has been alleged that the informant protested upon which appellant Bhola Bari brought a sword and appellant Brinda Bari brought a Garasa from their house. Appellant Bhola Bari gave a sword blow on the head of the informant as a result of which he sustained cut injury on the left side of his head. It has been further alleged that the appellant Brinda Bari gave several Garasa blows to the wife of the informant causing injuries on the left side of her head, right scapular region and at the root of left hand finger. It has been further alleged that his daughter rushed to save him upon which appellant Brinda Bari gave two Garasa blows on her as a result of which her left shoulder joint were cut at two places. The witnesses, namely, Raghunath Singh, Ram Dayal Mahto (P.W. 1), Dukhan Mahto and others who were present there have witnessed the occurrence. The injured informant, his wife and daughter were taken to Bikramganj police station on a Tamtam where the informant gave his statement on the basis of which F.l.R. (Ext. 2) was recorded. After completion of investigation the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Thereafter the cognizance was taken and the trial concluded with the result as stated above.

(3.) THE prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether five witnesses out of whom P.W. 5, Harakh Narain Singh is a formal witness who has proved the F.I.R. (Ext. 2) and signature (Ext. 2/1) of the informant. P.W. 2 is Suryamani Devi. P.W. 1 is Ram Dayal Mahto. P.W. 3 is Tara Devi injured. P.W. 4 is Dr. Vinay Kumar who has examined that injuries on the person of the informant, his wife (P.W. 2) and daughter (P.W. 3).