KASHI NATH YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 27th May, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 03rd June, 2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VI, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 306 of 1990, whereby the six appellants before this Court has been convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and one year under Section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE occurrence took place on 04.07.1989. The fardbayan of the informant Gautam Yadav was recorded by the Daroga of the concerned Police Station at the Maharajgnj Hospital. The prosecution case, in brief, is that Ram Chandra Yadav (appellant no. 5) and Sheo Jee Yadav (appellant no. 3) were removing mud from their field. After some time, their father Hari Charan Yadav joined them and all three of them began to cut the ridge which was in the field of the informant. The informant utilized this ridge to go towards the canal situated near his land. The informant protested, which resulted in assault, which has been described in the First Information Report in some details. It is said that Ram Chandra Yadav gave the informant a spade blow, which hit him on his left elbow. He got disbalanced and fell down, thereupon Sheo Jee Yadav began to assault him by lathi. Kashi Yadav assaulted the informant's grandfather Ram Barai Raut on his back, hip and arm by means of a bhala and stick. The mother of the informant was also assaulted by the miscreants by means of bhala and lathi.

(3.) THE other witnesses to the occurrence are PW 1 Kanhaiya Singh, PW 2 Janak Yadav and PW 3 Satyendra Singh. PW 1 Kanhaiya Singh has been mentioned in the First Information Report as a witness and he supports the case made out in the First Information Report and states that the dispute arose because the appellants were cutting the ridge which was situated on the land of the informant. It has been argued that this Court should not believe the statements of PW 1 as he has tried to improve the prosecution case and has stated that the wife of the informant was also injured in the occurrence. He supports the fact that Ram Barai Raut was injured in the said occurrence and goes so far as to say that he died six months after the occurrence on account of the injuries received by him. Counsel for the appellants submitted that this aspect of the matter had not been mentioned in the First Information Report and this witness is making allegations which have not been levelled by the informant or any other prosecution witnesses.