SAKHI CHAND RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are four appellants in the present appeal and they are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.1.1993 passed by Sri Chakradhar Rai, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1986/39 of 1992 under Ss. 307 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The appellants however were exonerated of the charges of other Section of the Penal Code but found guilty u/s. 323 of the Penal Code and by way of punishment they were ordered to be released on the probation bond of Rs. 2000.00 with two sureties of the like amount each on the assurance of good behaviour for one year. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it was a case of false implication on behalf of the informant because there was a dispute with regard to irrigation of the land drawing water from a Gairmajarua land located next to the land of these appellants. Though based on initial allegations made charges under Ss. 307, 379 and 323 of the Penal Code was framed, but the prosecution miserably failed to make out a case u/s. 307 as well as other Sections of the Penal Code. However they have been ordered to execute a bond on the basis of the finding of guilt u/s. 323. of the Penal Code. According to learned counsel for the appellants if after the prosecution evidence which was led by various witnesses was disbelieved with regard to the main charges then the charge u/s. 323 of the Penal Code also fails.

(3.) THE Court has perused the order given in the case where there was clear allegation that appellant No. 1 Sakhi Chand Rai had tied a rope around the neck of the informant and he was dragged by the same. The other accused persons are alleged to have assaulted him by fists and slaps. The informant because of this assault had to be taken to hospital where he was kept under treatment for almost eight days. He had difficulty in swallowing because of the injury of strangulation suffered by rope around his neck. The injury report produced as evidence before the Trial Court corroborates it. The same was proved by the doctor who had treated the informant. Perusal of the injury report does substantiate the allegation that a rope was tied to the neck of the informant and he was dragged. The genuineness of the allegation can be made out because injury no. 1 states "bruise 1/2" wide encircling upper part of the neck resembling rope like marking. Patient has difficulty in swallowing." The other injuries indicated in the injury report are various bruise which were caused by hard and blunt substance. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the allegation made and the injuries suffered by the informant are duly corroborated. The doctor in question too appeared before the Trial Court as a witness and he proved the injury report and the factum of treatment. Therefore to that extent it cannot be said to be a case of no evidence at all or the case being false in its entirety.