ATUL LAYAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment dated 2.12.1994 passed by Sri Mahesh Prasad Tiwari, the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Case No. 238 of 1986, whereby the appellant No. 2 Rewati Layak has been convicted for offence under Section 304 (Part-1) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for ten years and he has further convicted under Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced for R.I. for 2 months. Appellants Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 namely Atul Layak, Shisher Layak, Subodh Layak, Sarat Layak and Uttam Layak have been convicted under Sections 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for 2 months and one month respectively and the appellant Nos. 3. 8, 9, 10 namely Dhiran Layak, Bishun Layak, Piru Layak and Ashish Kumar Dutt have been convicted under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one month.

(2.) The brief facts of the case is that the informant stated in his fardbeyan that on the day of occurrence i.e. 8.5.84 he was taking rest in his Varanda after coming from the court when all the ten accused arrived there armed with Lathi, Sabal and Katari and started uttering in filthy language and rushed to the informant to assault him. The informant ran to his house and closed the door. The accused had broken the door and dragged out the son of the informant. The accused Rewati Layak gave a Sabal blow on the head of Rabindra Nath Dey (the informant's son) who immediately fell down sustaining serious injury on his head. The informant, his wife and daughters also came there to rescue but they all were assaulted and injured by these accused. On "hulla" several villagers came there, seeing them, the accused persons fled away from that place. While they were fleeing away, they thrown stones to the house of the informant result of which several inmates of their house were also injured. Rabindra Kumar Dey son of the informant died in the Hospital

(3.) In this case the prosecution has examined. 10 witnesses amongst them P.W.5 is the informant, P.W.4 is his wife, P.W.1 is his son and P.W.6 and 7 are his daughters. P.W.8 and 9 are the Police officers who investigated the case, P.W.10 is a formal witness. P.W.2 is tendered witness and P.W.3 has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Admittedly not a single independent witness was examined by the prosecution.