PRAKASH RABIDAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12/1996 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1996/8 of 1996 whereby and whereunder the learned Additions Sessions Judge convicted the appellant Prakash Rabidas for the offence punishable under Section 323, 324, 341 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for a period of 1 year for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, R1 for a period of 3 years for the offence under Sections 324 of the IPC, SI for a period of 1 month for the offence under Section 341 of the IPC, and RI for a period, of 10 years for the offence under Section 304 of the IPC. However, all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE prosecution case in short is the informant Turo Rabidas PW 1 gave fardbeyan on 8.10.1995 stating therein he was digging earth at about 4.00 p.m. for laying foundation of his house. At that time the appellant Prakash Rabidas came there and obstructed the informant in digging foundation and he also asked that the foundation should be dug after leaving 10 feet of the land. At this the informant stated that if the other person would leave 10 feet land then he would also leave the same. It is said that due to that quarrel started between them. In the meantime the wife of the informant came out and then the appellant is said to have assaulted the wife of the informant with fists. When the informant went to save his wife he was thrashed on the ground and assaulted on his chest and back by fists by the appellant. The appellant also bite on the left portion of the chest of the informant by his teeth. It is said that the mother of the informant also came to rescue but the appellant thrashed her on the ground. The mother of the informant was aged about 60 -70 years, who because of that thrash died after one hour of the assault. It is also said that the daughter of the informant aged about 4 years was standing there was also assaulted by the appellant by pushing her with his leg due to which she fell down and received injuries. In order to establish the charges the prosecution chose to examine only two witnesses, Le. PW 1 Turo Rabidas the informant himself and PW 2, his wife Arola Devi. It appears from the impugned judgment that in course of trial a petition for compounding the offence was filed but, since, no permission of the Court was sought by the accused persons, the same was not taken into consideration. However, Section 304 of the IPC was not even compoundable.

(3.) FROM the cross -examination of PW 1, Turbo Rabidas it appears that he has stated that his mother was aged about 70 years and she was an ailing lady suffering from old age and ailments and she died because of the ailment. Whereas PW 2 his wife though did admit that her mother -in -law was suffering from various ailment and was very old aged lady but she stated that she died because of the illness as well as due to the assault by fists given by the appellant. Therefore, it appears that there is a clear cut vital contradictions in the evidence of the PW 1 and PW 2 itself and, since no injury on the person of the deceased or any of the members of the prosecution was proved, therefore, the prosecution, in fact, failed to establish the charges against the appellant.