BAGHAMBAR MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state.

(2.) The instant appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.5.2002 passed by Sri Gautam Mahapatra, Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 4, Bokaro in S.T. No. 184 of 1990 by which judgment all the appellants have been found guilty for the offence under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C and they were convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years.

(3.) It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellants that although, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, but they have failed to prove any injury or injury report as no doctor was examined by the prosecution and in absence of doctor it is difficult to say that any injury was caused to the informant and witnesses, which were dangerous to their lives. He has further submitted that it was a fight due to land dispute, since the prosecution has alleged that the accused persons were trying to break the wall between the two houses. It is a matter of case and counter case. The accused persons have also filed a case with regard to the same allegation on the prasecution witnesses who are accused in the counter case in S.T. No. 185 of 1990. The defence has proved the charge sheet as Ext.A and proved the F.I.R of that case marked as Ext.B. Both the parties are in enmical terms due to land dispute. But in absence of any medical evidence and admitted case of land dispute, learned trial court has committed an error of law and wrongly found the appellants guilty under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is fit to be set aside.