SADHUYADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years. He was further convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Dharmanedra Kumar, is that on 18.4.1946 at about 5 a.m. while the informant along with his cousin Sanjay Kumar and villager Narayan Singh had gone to bring Cucumber [kakari] from his field, known as Ashrafchak Khandha, all of a sudden the appellant Sadhu Yadav came there and gave a lathi blow in the left leg of the informant. The informant, sustaining lathi injury, started fleeing away and when went at some distance then the appellant Sadhu Yadav fired a pistol upon the informant which caused injuries in the right thigh of the informant. Thereafter, the witnesses Sanjay Kumar and Narayan Singh, who were also present in the field brought him near the Khandha and thereafter with the help of the witnesses he came to the police station, where the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded. The cause of occurrence has been disclosed that one week prior to the occurrence, the appellant Sadhu Yadav wanted to cross through the grains of the informant which was kept in his khalihan. When he was objected, the appellant threatened him of dire consequences and due to the same the occurrence took place. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the formal FIR was registered in Bind Police Station under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27. of the Arms Act. The police after investigation submitted charge -sheet against the appellant and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial. Ultimately, trial concluded with the result as indicated above. The appellant pleaded not guilty and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the witnesses are interested and partisan and not a single independent witness has been examined in this case. He has further submitted that the appellant had no intention to kill the informant as he did not fire at the vital part of the body of the informant and the fire was not repeated. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that in this case apart from the informant, Dharmendra Kumar (PW 3), Sanjay Kumar (PW 2) and Pinku Kumar (PW 1), one Narayan Singh had also gone to the Cucumber field and was present when the occurrence took place there, but he has not been examined by the prosecution. PW 4 is not the eye -witness of the occurrence and PW 5 is the tender witness. As such the case is based on the evidence of PW 1, 2 and 3. Learned counsel further submits that though they are competent witnesses but they are interested witnesses as well.