RAMASHISH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23.9. 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No.114 of 1987 by the 2 nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, convicting the sole appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 27 of the Arms Act.

(2.) TWO persons were put on trial. Nagendra Choudhary has been acquitted in this case and whereas the appellant has been convicted. The prosecution story as per the statement of Harendra Chaudhary, who is the informant in this case, is that on 22.8.1986 at about 4 p.m. when he was returning to his house, appellant, namely, Ramashish Chaudhary along with Harendra Chaudhary and one Shambhu Chaudhary, did not allow him to pass, saying that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.384 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 route he was taking was not a "Rasta ". There was hot exchange of words and thereafter Shambhu Chaudhary, Ramashish Chaudhary opened fire at the informant hitting the left side of the rib-cage. It is also alleged that when he tried to run away Shambhu Chaudhary fired at him which hit his chest. Thus, the condition of the injured Harendra Chaudhary became serious and, as such, the then Judicial Magistrate was called to take his dying declaration which is marked as Ext.3. In the statement made at Ext.3 at 10 p.m. recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, Harendra Chaudhary has stated that he was accompanied by Birendra Chaudhary. On order being given by Ramashish, Birendra Chaudhary did not fire at him, therefore, Ramashish fired which did not hit him, Ramashish thereafter chased the informant and fired from a close range, which hit his wrist. Again it is alleged that Shambhu Chaudhary fired at the informant. It is also alleged that Rajendra Chaudhary assaulted the informant with lathi.

(3.) P.W. 4 has supported the prosecution version and claims to be a chance witness to the occurrence. In his cross- examination at paragraph-4, he, however, said that when he reached the place of occurrence, he saw the accused persons running away and also says that family members of Harendra Chaudhary had gathered around him. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that these witnesses, therefore, did not see the actual manner of assault.