CHANDRADEEP @ CHANDEEP SAO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three persons were tried by learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Jehanabad, in Sessions Trial No. 602 of 1992 after being charged with committing offences under Sections 307, 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and by judgment dated 25.6.2002, while they were acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, two of them, namely, Chandradeep and Bhim Prasad were held guilty of committing offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code while appellant Shanker Prasad was convicted of offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. When it came to inflicting sentence upon the convicts, the learned Trial Judge chose to direct appellant Chandradeep to execute a bond of being good conduct and behaviour as also to maintain peace for a period of two years in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of the like amount each whereas he directed appellants Bhim Prasad and Shanker Prasad to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and two months respectively for their respective convictions under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. The above judgment of conviction and order of sentence have jointly been challenged by the three convicts by preferring the present appeal. The basis for initiation of the prosecution was Ext.-1, the Fardbeyan of informant Ashok Prasad, P.W. 3 who was running a flour mill in his village Allegation was that the three appellants came to his establishment and stated to him that he was influencing their customers which was refuted by the informant by stating to the accused persons that the customers were themselves coming to his business premises. That appears leading to some altercations and ultimately it was alleged that the three accused persons entered inside the shop and appellant Chandradeep who was armed with a Talwar, gave a blow with the weapon on the head of the informant causing injury to him. Appellant Bhim Prasad also gave a blow with the same weapon on the neck of the father of the informant who attempted to save himself by raising his right hand and received an injury in that process in his right hand. Appellant Shanker Prasad was alleged to have given a Lathi blow also on the right hand of the father of the informant.

(2.) The contention before this Court is that in absence of the examination of the doctor and non-production of the injury reports of the two injured the informant and his father there was complete lack of evidence which disproved the charges also under Sections 324 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Submission also was that the very manner of occurrence which was described orally on the record had not been supported by the medical evidence and as such the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence was not sustainable in absence of supporting evidence.

(3.) What appears from the submission and after considering the record is that the appeal is to turn on a very short question of law based on the facts of the case as to whether the conviction of appellants Chandradeep Sao and Bhim Prasad under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and that of Shanker Prasad under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustainable in absence of the evidence of the doctor.