NAGESHWAR DAS Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

(2.) Appellant No. 4 has been found guilty and convicted under Sections 148/ 324 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo R.I. for three years for inflicting a farsa blow on Ram Swaroop Das. The other nine appellants in this case have been found guilty under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year.

(3.) This case arises out of a complaint case filed by Ram Swaroop Das which was later converted into a First Information Report. As per the informant, the appellants and the informant and others are closely related to each other. It is said that there was a piece of land appertaining to Khesra No. 213/214 which according to the informant was in the name of Chaturi Das father of the informant. Chaturi Das was constructing a thatched hut over the said land. Appellant Shankar Das raised an objection to the construction of the thatched hut which led to the said occurrence. It is alleged that Shankar Das wanted to assault Chaturi Das, PW 2 who ran from the place of occurrence, in the meantime. Shankar Das assaulted Ram Swaroop with a farsa on his head. The other accused persons are said to have been assaulted the informant by injuring him on the head. They allegedly destroyed the hut which had been constructed and then ran inside the house of Chaturi Das, assaulted his wife and took away house hold articles. The complaint was filed on 21.3.1991 for an occurrence which took place on 20.3.1991 at 8 a.m. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that the complaint case is nothing but an after-thought filed on the basis of false injury report and consultation with a lawyer considering that Chandradeo Das, appellant No. 2 had filed Parbatta P.S. Case No. 25 of 1991 (Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1992) at 7.45 a.m. on 20.3.1991 in which it has been alleged that Charuti Das gave the order and one Bipin Das is said to have fired at Baleshwar Das, father of appellant No. 4 to 7. The reason for the occurrence as per the First Information Report instituted by appellant No. 2 is that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to partition of land which is adjacent to the house of the appellants. The appellants have also made out a case that the so called injured persons were examined In the private clinic of the Civil Surgeon and not at the hospital which would be apparent from the evidence of he doctor and the informant.