MITHU SAH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants have been found guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years by the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 448/1993.

(2.) THE case as made out in the First Information Report is that the informant Kewal Sah noticed that Mithu Sah had placed his paddy bundles on the land belonging to the informant in the morning. It is said that in the evening at around 5.30, Kewal Sah along with his sons and wife went to the house of his brother and asked him to remove the paddy bundles. The accused persons refused to remove the bundles. Thereafter the informant started to remove the paddy bundles from his land and started to keep those bundles on the land of the accused persons whereupon Mithu Sah ordered his wife to bring acid from the house. She brought acid and handed it to her son, Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah. Accused Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah threw acid on the informant which injured his cheek, neck, back and eye. It is also alleged that Laljhari Devi assaulted P.W. 3, Sanjharia Devi. It is further alleged that accused Kishore Sah threw acid on Sheo Shankar Sah as a result of which, Sheo Shankar Sah sustained burn injuries upon left hand and back. It has been stated in the First Information Report that the informant has three brothers. There has been oral partition amongst them and each of them staying on the piece of land allotted to him. The informant's case is that Mithu Sah was trying to grab the land belonging to him.

(3.) IT has also been argued that there is improvement in the prosecution version inasmuch as the witnesses have changed their case by stating that Laljhari Devi got two bottles of acid which she handed over to Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah and Kishore Sah both, whereas, in the First Information Report the informant does not mention the number of acid bottles produced by Laljhari Devi for the use of the other appellants i.e. Kishore Sah and Bashishtha Sah @ Chhotka Sah. In my view the First Information Report cannot contain each and every detail regarding the occurrence. The main facts have already been mentioned in the First Information Report and as such, cannot be said that omission to mention two bottles would be fatal to the prosecution case. It is admitted by all the witnesses that several villagers came to the place of occurrence. However, none of them have been produced by the prosecution to give their evidence. It is submitted that only interested witnesses have been examined in this case. This aspect of the matter has been explained by P.W.4, the informant Kewal Sah who has stated that the other witnesses are not interested as they are scared of the appellants. This Court, therefore, rejects all the submission raised on behalf of the appellants with respect to disbelieving the manner of the occurrence.