MEGHNATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Balak Yadav, Meghnath Yadav, Raghunath Yadav, Ram Gope Yadav, Babulal Yadav, SHIV Barat Yadav and Ghamandi Yadav were prosecuted of the charges under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 149, IPC on accusation of voluntarily causing hurt to Gora Yadav and Ramhit Yadav, by means of hard and blunt substance, on forming unlawful assembly, and all of them having acted in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly. Deonath Yadav, Jagdish Yadav and Kish Yadav were prosecuted for the charges under Section 324, IPC read with Section 149, IPC. on accusation of voluntarily causing hurt to Ramhit Yadav by means of sharp-cutting weapon, in prosecution of common object of the unlawful assembly. Meghnath Yadav was prosecuted for the charges under Section 436, IPC.

(2.) THE factual matrix - the accusation against the appellants and others was that on 22nd May, 1980, at about noon, they came and having trespassed in the house of Raghunandan Yadav, began to remove gunny bags containing wheat, and on protest, while Deonath Yadav assaulted Ramhit Yadav on his head by means of garasa, Sheo Barat Yadav and Ghamandi Yadav assaulted said Ramhit Yadav by means of hard and blunt substance. THE accusation against Jagdish Yadav was about assaulting Gora Yadav by means of sharp-cutting instrument. THE other accusation was against Megh Nath Yadav about setting the house of Raghunandan Yadav on fire. After the Police was set in motion on these accusations, investigation, commenced in course of which the Police Officer recorded statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, got the injured examined by the doctor, visited the place of occurrence and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court. THE appellants along with others on their committal to the Court of Sessions, were eventually put on trial.

(3.) THE finding recorded by the trial Court was sought to be assailed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on variety of reasonings and it is sought to be urged that in the early version of Raghunandan Yadav which he rendered before the Police to set it in motion, though Jagdish Yadav has been saddled with allegation of assaulting Gora Yadav with sharp cutting instrument, even Gora Yadav, who appended to be injured, would not saddle the said Jagdish Yadav for assaulting him, as explicit assertion made by this witness at trial was that it was Kish Yadav, who dealt bhala blow on him. Contrary to the assertions made by this witness, Munarik Yadav (P.W. 2) would state about Jagdish Yadav assaulting Gora Yadav by bhala and if the statement of Ramhit Yadav (P.W. 3) was considered to be credible, he too saddled Kish Yadav to be the assailant of Gora Yadav. Evidence of Raghunandan Yadav (P.W. 4) was, however, otherwise, as though he saddled Jagdish Yadav to be the assailant, the injured was suggested to be one Bhola Yadav. Taking into considerations the narrations made by the witnesses, they appear to be quite incoherent about Jagdish Yadav to be the assailant of Gora Yadav and I must say that the evidence of witnesses were not in tune with the early version of the prosecution.