BHUNESHWAR RAM & ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.9.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 212/88, whereby and where under the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh held the appellants guilty under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149, Penal Code and sentenced them to serve RI for one year under Sec. 147, two years under Sec. 148 and for life under Sec. 302/149, IPC. However, sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The factual matrix of prosecution case are that in the eve of Holi in 1987 on 16.3.1987 the informant along with deceased were performing Holi songs at about 6.00 p.m. when appellant Bhuneshwar Ram arrived there in drunken condition and started abusing Gango Ram, the deceased. It is further stated that Gango Ram retorted after which matter was pacified and both Gango as well as Bhuneshwar were sent to their respective houses. However, at 6.30 p.m. the informant heard sound of fires from the house of the deceased and rushed there to find that the appellants, named above, armed variously have assembled near the house of the deceased. According to the informant, the appellants started assaulting the informant and the deceased. The informant further attributed specific overt act of assault by Bijay Ram upon the deceased with bhala on his stomach. The informant was assaulted by appellant Bhuneshwar Ram. Ramwtar by Sikandar Ram and Prabhu Ram by Bijay and Ram Sewak Ram by Jitendra. According to the informant, Gango Ram died on the spot. The injured persons went to Keredari hospital for medical aid, where police arrived and recorded the statement of the informant on 17.3.1987. On the basis of this fardbeyan Keredari P.S. Case No. 27/87 was registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 324 and 302/34, Penal Code against all the appellants. The trial of the appellant was committed to the court of Sessions where they were charged on 24.8.1992. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution on the basis of counter case lodged by them. However, the learned trial Court found and held them guilty of the offences and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) The present appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial Court has committed mistake by convicting the appellants. It is further asserted that the prosecution case suffers from non-examination of Independent witnesses. It is further asserted that in absence of I.O. and Medical Officer, the appellants have been prejudiced in their defence. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, homicidal death could not be proved by the prosecution as the doctor conducting postmortem examination has not been examined. It is also submitted that in absence of the I.O., contradictions in the statements of interested witnesses could not be drawn. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, their counter case for the same occurrence has resulted in conviction of the informant side. Therefore, the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the defence version and came to hold the appellants guilty wrongly. It is also submitted that the charge was not found on record and later on it was signed on 24.1.2000. According to the counsel for the appellants, the injuries on other persons, PWs 1 to 5, were not brought on record. As such the prosecution version of interested witnesses should not have been relied upon. Accordingly the prayer for setting aside the judgment of conviction has been made.