SUDHIR JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned APP.

(2.) Prayer has been made at the end of the learned counsel for the appellant that appellant, who was on bail during course of trial, be allowed to avail the privilege after suspending the sentence more particularly in the background of the fact that there happens to be an admission at the end of witnesses including the I.O. with regard to institution of counter case. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that from para-19 of the judgment impugned, it is evident that learned lower court has properly appreciated the evidences and then recorded that the mango orchard does not belong to the informant with a further finding that R.S. Khatiyan stood recorded in name of Balbhadra Jha, Shyamakant Jha and others and so, admitting that dispute arose over plucking of the mango which ought not to be at the end of prosecution as they have got no legal identity concerning the same, hence could be aggressor as well as presence of counter case, in worst case did justify the right of private defence. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that prosecution is under obligation to explain the injuries over the person of accused having sustained during course of same occurrence which, in the present case, failed. Apart from this, it has also been submitted that appellant happens to be under custody since the date of recording of finding of guilt that means to say from 14.02.2019.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned APP while controverting the submission has submitted that there happens to be consistent version of the prosecution that appellant is the person who shot at injured/informant Manoj Kumar Singh. The injury report is there corroborated by the evidence of doctor. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that version and counter version is indicative of the fact that an occurrence took place and for that, two alternative version have been advanced. The court has accepted the version flashed at the end of the prosecution whereupon, the prayer of the appellant is found non-maintainable.