SHYAM BABU CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORAL JUDGMENT The solitary appellant has preferred this Appeal against his conviction for the offences under Section 307 and 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence respectively to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and one year but with fine of Rs.10,000/ -, in default whereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months and the amount of fine if and when released is to be paid to the informant and sentences are to run concurrently as awarded by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Patna in Sessions Trial No. 45 of 1993 arising out of Danapur P.S. Case No. 407 of 1991.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short as reveal from Ext.3, fardbeyan of the informant, Shiv Bhajan Choudhary,PW -3, recorded at bed no.3, Surgical ward of P.M.C.H., Patna at 17 hours on 31st Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.419 of 2002 dt.20 -02 -2014 August 1991 in presence of PW -2, Hari Prasad Mahto, father of the informant by A.S.I., Rajnath Singh, PW -5 is that on the previous day i.e. on 30th August 1991 while the informant, who was working as a mason at the house of one Ram Babu Rai, PW -1, was going to purchase iron rods and cement for which he was entrusted by PW -1of being provided Rs.10,000/ - at about 03:00 p.m., he arrived near a toddy shop of one Muneshwar Choudhary, father of the appellants he met with said Muneshwar Choudahry (co -accused during trial), the appellant and his full brother, Rambabu Choudhary (not sent up for trial) he offered by deceased accused to have toddy by accepting such offer he taken two glass of toddy and intimated them that he is going to purchase some articles and while making payment of toddy Rs.4/ - he was caught hold by three persons i.e. the appellant his father and brother and they tried to snatch the money. During re -scuffling deceased accused, Muneshwar Choudhary, inflicted injuries upon the informant on his stomach and left hand and the miscreants after snatching money fled away. On alarm other persons including his father arrived there and the informant narrated the incident to them and in senseless stage he was brought to P.M.C.H., Patna for treatment.

(3.) PW -1, Rambabu Rai, is a persons at whose house informant was worked as one of the mason and he states about giving Rs.10,000/ - to him to purchase the articles. He could learn subsequently about the incident and in the next date met with the injured at P.M.C.H. who narrated everything to him. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and in cross -examination he says at the time of making payment to the informant he was busy with some work connected with brick working. PW -2, Hari Prasad Mahto, father of the informant and one of the labourer at the house of PW -1, on alarm arrived at place of occurrence found the informant fallen injured with his stomach cut, he immediately provided some assistance to stop bleeding and brought him to hospital during the period the informant narrated the incident to him. In cross -examination, he admits that he is not an eye witness and, further states that on the day of incidences his son has not worked with him and the towel, lungi and dhoti which were used for avoiding bleeding were not seized by the police. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.419 of 2002 dt.20 -02 -2014