NIRMALA DEVI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sole appellant Jai Prakash Thakur who has been directed to undergo R.I. for six months under Section 323 of the IPC, R.I. for one year under Section 3(i)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act vide judgment of conviction dated 28.01.2009 and order of sentence dated 02.02.2009 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (POA) Act, Munger in Sessions Trial no.259/2005 has challenged the same under the instant appeal. It is evident from the record that aforesaid appellant Jai Shankar Thakur has died of 24.01.2017 and on account thereof, asking for substitution in accordance with Section 394 of the Cr.P.C in the background of the fact that the judgment impugned was to adversely affect upon their prospect being the appellant Jai Prakash Thakur a railway employee, under I.A. No.2133 of 2018 along with prayer for condonation of delay under I.A. No.132/2018 and, vide order dated 07.09.2018 appellant's wife, namely, Nirmala Devi has been allowed to be substituted after condonation the delay and accordingly, instant appeal is being sailed at her end.

(2.) On 20.05.2003 Shail Devi wife of Tufani Paswan filed written report disclosing therein that while she was at the place of her neighbour Urmila Devi to participate in Tilak ceremony of her son on the preceding night at about twelve midnight, appellant armed with lathi came at the place of Urmila Devi and inquired why this Dushadhin has been invited. Further, he scolded her on the pretext of being member of scheduled cast which was resisted by her and then thereafter, Jai Prakash Thakur gave indiscriminate lathi blow. On account of intervention of local people she was rescued. Jai Prakash Thakur also took away ornaments. He also abused her. Land dispute has been shown to be motive of the occurrence. After registration of Sadar (SC-ST) Case no.18/2003, the matter was investigated upon and after concluding the same, charge sheet was submitted followed with trial, meeting with the ultimate result, subject matter of instant appeal.

(3.) Defence case as is evident from mode of crossexamination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is that of complete denial. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that on account of land dispute wherein, the appellant won the title suit, this case has falsely been filed in retaliation. To substantiate the same, oral as well as documentary evidences have been adduced on behalf of appellant.