ABDUL KHAIR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE solitary appellant has preferred this appeal against his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years as awarded on 01st May, 1999 by 6th Additional Sessions Judge, West Champaran at Bettiah, in Sessions Trial No. 520 of 1993 arising out of Ramnagar P.S. Case No. 8 of 1993.

(2.) THE prosecution has come out with the case vide Exhibit-3, the Fardbeyan, of Jamal Hussain (P.W.-6/informant) recorded at Government Hospital, Ramnagar by Assistant Sub- Inspector, C.D. Baitha (P.W.-8) on 04th January, 1993 at 10.00 hours is that on the same day in morning at about 7.45 A.M. while he was coming after meeting the natural call found the appellant planted for Mango trees in his field and was irrigating the same. Then, he questioned about the location of such plantation since whenever it will grow up caused shadow in adjacent field belonging to the informant and the same shall causing loss of cultivation etc. During that protest, the appellant took out Gandassa kept concealed in his Shawl and gave one blow on his (informant) head, in spite of course of protest, causing injuries on head, chicks and both hands. Both sides are at inimical terms since before and on being alarm raised Wajid Hussain (P.W.-1), Barkat Hussain (P.W.-5) and Yakub Mian (P.W.-2) came there and brought him to hospital and they also seen the occurrence and fleeing of appellant from there.

(3.) IT is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that he has been falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and neither repetition of blow nor the injuries being sustained are grievous in nature rather they are simple and in no way offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal code is attracted and there is also none to support the prosecution version except the informant. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has supported the findings of the court below on the grounds mentioned in the judgment.