EHTESAMUDDIN @ TASMUDDIN @ MD. EHTESAMUDDIN Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ehtesamuddin @ Tasmuddin @ Md. Ehtesamuddin, who has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 341 IPC and directed to undergo S.I. for one month, under Section 324 IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for two years, under Section 307 IPC and directed to undergo R.I. for 5 years as well as also fined Rs.15,000/ - in default thereof to undergo R.I. for six months additionally vide judgment dated 18.05.2012 and sentence dated 22.05.2012 by First Additional Sessions Judge, Patna City in Sessions Trial No.385 of 2001 has challenged the same preferring instant appeal.

(2.) IT has been submitted on behalf of appellant that the conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial court happens to be bad, illegal, capricious, arbitrary and on account thereof is fit to be set aside. It has further been submitted that the occurrence so alleged was neither premeditated nor preplanned and even accepting the version of the prosecution, neither appellant carried an intention to commit murder nor had knowledge that by such action there happens to be every likelihood of death of informant, consequent thereupon the conviction so recorded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code happens to be contrary to the evidence available on the record.

(3.) PUTTING much stress on these issues, it has been submitted that virtually prosecution party happens to be the aggressor who brutally assaulted the appellant and for that on the fardbeyan of appellant a case was instituted wherein informant had gone under judicial custody which the informant himself had admitted apart from the fact that from the order sheet of the learned lower court, it is evident that after having been discharged from the Patna Medical College Hospital appellant was taken into custody by the police and then was remanded to judicial custody. By suppressing the aforesaid theme, it has been submitted that the prosecution had suppressed the genesis as well as manner of occurrence and so, prosecution version is fit to be disarrayed. Then, it has been submitted that although due to lapse on the part of the appellant the relevant document have not been produced and exhibited but in the background of admission of the informant as well as from the order sheet of the lower court being part and parcel of record, prima facie a case of right of private defence is made out and so again the appellant deserves acquittal on that very score.