DHORA BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is being impugned in this revision at the instance of the informant, a private party, is finding of acquittal recorded by Shri R.N. Verma, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari, in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 1995. Factual matrix--Dhora Bhagat had been to the house of Sheo Bachan Sah for seeds and as said Sheo Bachan Sah was otherwise busy, he asked him to come afterwards. Allegedly, shortly after Dhora Bhagat proceeded, the accused persons, who were 13 in numbers came and encircled Dhora Bhagat. Then on exhortation made by Suraj Bhagat and Jagarnath Bhagat, Nand Kishore Bhagat and Ganga Bishun Bhagat assaulted Dhora Bhagat with hard blunt object. Alarms were raised by Dhora Bhagat, pursuant to which deceased Laxman Bhagat came from his house and on exhortation made by said Suraj Bhagat and Jagarnath Bhagat, Gaya Bhagat dealt a farsa blow on his head, which was followed by assault with hard and blunt object by Nand Kishore Bhagat, Shambhu Bhagat, Ganga Bishun Bhagat and Ram Surat Bhagat. Laxman Bhagat thereafter dropped injured and eventually succumbed to the injuries. The ball was set in motion by Dhora Bhagat, who instituted a police case with accusation of killing of Laxman Bhagat and also assaulting him.

(2.) At trial, the State examined ten witnesses including doctor, Police Officer and host of other witnesses. The trial Judge, however, on appreciation of evidences available on the record, it seems discredited the prosecution version, primarily on following premises :

(3.) Contentions were raised on behalf of the petitioner that nature of the injury found by the doctor on the dead body of Laxman was quite possible by blunt part of the sharp edged weapon and hence the finding of the doctor cannot be construed to have run counter to the ocular testimony of the witnesses. However, I am of the view that once the witnesses are stating about use of sharp edged weapon, as an instrument for assaulting a person, the inference drawn would be that the edged part of the weapon was used by the assailant and unless the witnesses say otherwise about use of the blunt part of the weapon by the assailant, no unwarranted inference can be drawn by the Court.