RAJJU MANJHI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for five years and three years by a judgment dated 7.1.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Patna in Sessions Trial No.124 of 1989/477 of 2001.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution according to the Informant Ram Lakhan Choudhary (P.W.2) is that when he was returning from the market, the accused persons started abusing him. When he protested, they assaulted him. He however ran towards his house but the accused persons chased him and then started to beat his tiles. When his minor son opened the door of his house, the Appellant fired at him with a pistol and fled away.

(3.) DURING trial the prosecution examined six witnesses in all to prove its case. Out of whom, P.W.1 Ramesh Choudhary is the Injured, P.W.2 Ram Lakhan Choudhary is the Informant and P.W.3 Parsuram Sah is on the factum of the occurrence. P.W.4 Baijnath Choudhary did not support the case of the prosecution and hence was declared hostile. P.W.5 Mahendra Sao has been tendered. P.W.6 Arun Choudhary is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.1, the Injured, stated that on the date of occurrence suddenly when he opened the door he found the accused persons beating his tiles and then the Appellant fired, which hit him on the mouth, on account of which he fell unconscious. When he was removed to the Hospital, he regained his consciousness. He lost 2 -3 teeth on account of such firing. It was suggested to him that his father used to run a toddy shop. He stated that six months after the occurrence he had been examined by the Police. P.W.2 Ram Lakhan Choudhary is the Informant, who supported the narrative given in the First Information Report. In his cross examination he stated that all the accused persons belong to the same family. P.W.3 Parsuram Sah merely stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he saw the injured unconscious and bleeding from his mouth and Ramesh Choudhary having caught hold of accused Ganauri Manjhi and another. In his cross examination he admitted that he was not examined by the Police during investigation. P.W.6 Arun Choudhary supported the prosecution case in his examination -in -chief. It was suggested to him that Ganauri Manjhi had been assaulted in the same occurrence. It was also suggested to him that he had been examined one month after the occurrence. In this case I find that neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer have been examined to corroborate the prosecution case. The non -examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the accused since the attention of all the witnesses was drawn on important aspects. Moreover the medical report, which could indicate the intention of the Appellant, has not been proved. Also the manner in which the firing is said to have done even if believed reveals that it was a random shot without the intent of causing death of the Injured.