RAMKESHWAR YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ramkeshwar Yadav is the father of appellant Khabil Yadav. Appellant Ramkeshwar Yadav was indicted of committing offences under Section 307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code while appellant Khabil Yadav was charged with committing offence under Section 307. of the Indian Penal Code for being put on trial in Sessions Trial No. 349. of 1992. The judgment was delivered by Fast Track Court - III, Bhojpur on 4.6.2002 and the appellants were held guilty of committing the offences they had been charged with. When it came to passing sentence upon the appellants after hearing them under Section 235 of the Cr.P.C. the court appears not passing any sentence of Ramkehswar Yadav who had been convicted for committing offence under Section 307 read with Section 109. of the Indian Penal Code and passed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years only against appellant Khabil Yadav. However on account of being convicted both the appellants have appealed to this Court against the impugned judgment. P.W. 4 the informant stated in his fardbeyan that he had gone to ease in the fields and while he was so doing he picked up the sound of some activities in his sugar cane field. He initially thought that some wild animals were there and out of curiosity he went inside the sugar cane field to find that appellant Khabil Yadav was cutting the sugar cane plants. He objected to and questioned the act of appellant Khabil Yadav who warned him of serious consequences upon which there was some exchange of hot words when appellant Ramkeshwar Yadav the father of appellant Khabil Yadav arrived there and he ordered to assault the informant whereupon appellant Khabil Yadav started giving blows with baisakhi, which is pointed out to be a weapon fixed into a lathi, having sharp cutting edges. The blows were severe and several both so much so that the informant alleged having lost his consciousness and also having fallen down on the ground.

(2.) HE was shifted to the hospital, where he was examined by P.W. 5 Dr. S.K.C. Singh who found the following injuries on the person of P.W. 4 -

(3.) I was taken through the evidence of witnesses by Shri Ram Chandra Singh, Advocate who submitted that the witnesses who were examined, like, P.Ws. 1 and 2 on their own evidence appears not to be eye witnesses. P.W. 3. Prem Niranjan Chaudhary had not supported the prosecution story and as such he was declared hostile. Thus the evidence of solitary witness, i.e., of P.W. 4 was the basis for convicting the appellants and it was not sufficient for passing the judgment of conviction by the learned trial judge.