BINOD KAHAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants suffered conviction under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code on being tried by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda and were sentenced to undergo rigorous 3 imprisonment for a term of five years each.

(2.) THE factual matrix ''It was alleged that at 8.30 p.m. on 9th June, 1984 while Manohar Prasad, PW 4, was going to respond to natures call and had hardly reached the cattle fair, he noticed appellants coming holding katar with them who dealt blows on him with the said weapon causing injuries on his person. After the police case had been registered with these accusations on behest of Manohar Prasad, investigation commenced, in course of which the police recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, secured injury report from the doctor and on conclusion of investigation laid charge -sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether five witnesses including doctor and the injured.

(3.) VARIOUS contentions were raised at Bar on behalf of the appellants about there being serious infirmity in the prosecution case and it is sought to be urged that documents placed on the record would not fail to suggest that after receipt of alleged injuries by Manohar Prasad at 8.30 on 9th June, 1984, he took recourse to public authority at the Police Station, who drew first information report not before 9.30 p.m., and notwithstanding institution of the Police case at this hour, it would appear from the evidence of the doctor, Ram Nagina Singh, PW 5, that he examined the injured at 9. p.m., and on these premises it is urged that since the first information report itself was drawn up at the Police Station at 9.30 p.m., there was no occasion for referring the injured to the doctor for examination of the injured at 9. p.m. The other contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants was that though the witnesses were claiming to be ocular, it would appear from the tenor of the first information report and also the evidences that there was no occasion for them to witness the incident, as they were suggested to have reached the place of occurrence on alarms raised by the victim on receiving injury by Manohar Prasad and the last argument canvassed at bar on behalf of the appellants was that though the prosecution was launched against them in the year 1984, about two decades have elapsed since institution of the case and, hence, it is urged that in case, the finding of guilt recorded by Court below was upheld by this Court, this mitigating circumstances deserves to be taken notice of for consideration of imposition of sentence against them.