CHANDARYADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of ten years.

(2.) SALIENT facts of the prosecution case, which are not with much details, can be recapitulated with brevity. Allegedly, Gauri Devi (PW 5) suffered assault with lethal weapon by the appellant when she had slept with her two children in her house near the cattle shed adjacent to Kalisthan. Her son rushed to his father and informed him about the incident, pursuant to which prosecution was launched against the appellant on behest of Babulal Yadav, husband of the injured on strength of his fardbeyan recorded by Police at 8.15 hours on 16th July, 1998 at Kharagpur State hospital. As usual investigation commenced, during which Police Officer collected evidences, recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, got the injured clinically examined by the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge -sheet before the Court. In the eventual trial that followed, the State examined nine witnesses, who were injured, her family members including husband and son, the doctor, who clinically examined the injured and also host of other witnesses who stated to have witnessed Gauri Devi lying injured with some wounds on her person.

(3.) THOUGH narrations made by prosecution witnesses have been fairly spelt out in the judgment of the Court below, that may be discussed with brevity to appreciate the contentions raised. Reiterating his earliest version which he rendered before the Police, Babulal Yadav (PW 7), who happens to be husband of the injured Gauri Devi and also maker of the Jurdbeyan, states about he having been informed by his son Dinesh Yaday for Gauri Devi having suffered injuries by lethal weapon by the appellant. Comments made by the learned counsel for the appellant on credibility of this witness was that if fardbeyan, which is the earliest version of the State, was to be given any credence, Dinesh Yadav was not suggested to have disclosed complicity of the appellant to his father.