GOKARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above four appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31-3-1993 passed by Additional Sessions Judge IV, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 70/17 of 1991/1989 by which they have been found guilty for offence under S.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been convicted and sentenced thereunder to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

(2.) AT the outset, it has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that there were more cases between the parties and all the cases have been compromised and in this case also, a petition of compromise has been filed with signatures of all. Learned counsel for the informant is also present in Court and supported the fact that the cases have been compromised between the parties and now there is no ill feeling between them.

(3.) IT appears that on 13-6-1984 at about 9.00 p. m. while the informant (PW 6 Satyadeo Singh) was at his motor pump cabin, the accused persons variously armed came. One of the accused namely, Gokaran Singh ordered other accused persons to assault the informant. Thereafter accused Chhotan Singh used his bhala by attacking on the informant. The informant in that course sustained injury and fell down. Thereafter accused Gokaran Singh sat on his chest. The informant pushed back the said accused to save his life but the other accused persons namely Sidheshwar Singh and Pankaj Kumar alias Pappu assaulted him by means of their sticks. Further allegation is that accused Gokaran Singh gave a teeth bite to the informant. The genesis of the occurrence as alleged is demand of rangdari. The occurrence was witnessed by witnesses namely, Narendra Singh (PW 1), Akhilesh Singh (PW 3) and Arjun Singh (PW 2). The fardbeyan of the informant resulted in Hasua P. S. Case No. 51 of 1984 dated 14-6-1984 under S.341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The matter was duly investigated into and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted under the aforesaid Sections. The cognizance was taken. In trial, charge under S.307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against all the four accused persons who pleaded innocence and faced trial. The defence was that they have been falsely implicated on account of enmity.