KAILU KAMAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant suffered conviction under sections 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), on being tried by Shri Paras Nath, 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Saharsa, in Sessions Trial No. 39 of 1990 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years and five years, respectively on these counts.

(2.) THE prosecution was launched against the appellant on behest of Jagdish Kamat (P.W. 1) with accusation that on 7th August, 1989, in the early hours of morning, while he was washing his hands at a hand pump, installed beside his house, and was drawing water from the said hand pump for his son, the appellant came and dealt blows on his neck with farsa causing bleeding injury on his person and in quick succession the other blow was given on right arm as a consequence of which it was completely chopped of. After receipt of information about the incident, the Police Officer rushed to the place of occurrence, recorded fardbeyan of Jagdish Kamat, on strength of which, first information report was drawn up at Balua Bazar Police Station. The investigating commenced, during which the Police Officer visited the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, including the injured, his family members, the Police Officer and also claimed to have seized some incriminating object from the house of Lallu Kamat, and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge sheet before the Court.

(3.) THE contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant to question the propriety of the findings recorded by the court below was that though some sort of motive about the land dispute with the appellant was sought to be assigned at the stage of trial, by none else but Jagdish Kamat, such narrations were conspicuously wanting in the early version which he rendered before the Police and it is urged that as a corollary of this, the bona fide and credibility of the entire prosecution has to be thrown over board. Yet, it is urged that though not only the witnesses but even the Police Officer, who visited the place of occurrence, had been stating before the Court about the presence of blood at the place of occurrence, there was no evidence of collection of blood stained soil and its eventual chemical examination by an expert. Though a farsa, an instrument with which Jagdish Kamat allegedly suffered injury at the hands of the appellant, is shown to have been seized from Dallu Kamat by the Police Officer but there was no positive and credible evidence to persuade the Court to believe that if at all any incriminating object was seized with blood mark, the same was human blood. The other limb of argument canvassed on behalf of the appellant was that though Bhagmatia Devi (P.W. 2) narrated to have taken recourse to public authority shortly after the incident which is also corroborated from the narration made by the Police Officer, that being the early version of the State, had been deliberately suppressed and what is being sought to be levelled as the fardbeyan was not the early version and lastly, it is urged that as the prosecution was launched against the appellant in the year 1989 and he suffered ordeal of protracted prosecution for about 13 years and also that he suffered custody for more than two years, this mitigating circumstance also deserves to be taken into account while awarding sentence to him, if the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court was upheld by the Court. Learned counsel for the State would resist the contentions raised at Bar on behalf of the appellant and it is urged that the witnesses examined by the State were considered to be credible by the trial court and the finding recorded by the trial court did not merit interference.