INDO SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.7.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 242 of 1987, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge -Ist -cum Fast Track Court, Giridih held appellant Indo Singh guilty and sentenced him to undergo RI for five years under Section 307 IPC and one year under Section 148 IPC and appellants Ganesh Sao, Nago Singh, Madan Hazam, Budhan Hazam, Butan Singh, Jagdish Hazam @ Beni Hazam and Raj Kishore Hajra are sentenced to undergo RI for six months under Section 147 and two years under Section 325 and five yeas under Section 307 read with Section 149 IPC. However, sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant and appellant Ganesh Sao are son and father, who have got dispute regarding the share in the properties. As further stated, appellant No. 1 married second time after the death of the mother of the informant fifteen years ago and thereafter he started ill -treating him. According to the informant Bundo Sao, appellant did not want to share the ancestral properties with him in spite of his demand. It is further stated that Bithal Sao and others persuaded the appellant No. 1 to share the property but still he was adamant not to provide any share to the informant. On 8 th July, 85 at 9 AM the informant again requested the appellant No. 1 to allot him his share, on which he became angry and went out side saying that he will finish him today. Thereafter within ten minutes appellant No. 1 returned with other appellants and at the instance of appellant No. 1 he was assaulted with fists, slaps, kicks etc. The informant raised alarm, upon which PW 3 arrived there and tried to save him. It is further stated that appellant No. 1 asked other appellants to kill him. It is stated that appellant Indo Singh @ Indo Sao gave a sword blow on his left knee, after which PW 3 fell down and others started assaulting him. However, when they found that PW 3 has become senseless, they fled away. The occurrence was seen by witnesses examined in the trial court. The injured were taken to Bengabad hospital for their treatments where police arrived and recorded the statement of Bundo Sao. Police registered Jamua P.S. Case No. 71/85 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 307 IPC. Thereafter, police investigated the case and finally submitted chargesheet against nine persons, out of which one Dhokal Singh is dead. Therefore, only above named appellants were charged for the offences under Sections 307, 325/149 IPC jointly. Appellant Indo Singh was further charged under Sections 147/307 IPC separately. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However trial court found and held all of them guilty for various offences and sentenced them as aforesaid.

(3.) TO appreciate the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants, I propose to deal with the evidence available on record. The prosecution in the present case has examined altogether 11 witnesses, out of which PW 11 is formal, who proves his fardbeyan recorded by SI Dharam Ojha as Ext.3. PW 10 has been tendered by the prosecution. PW 9 arrived at the PO to find the injured Bithal Sao and informant Bundo Sao in injured condition. He is a witness on the fard beyan also. He is not a witness of assault. PW 5 -Dilo Sao was also tendered PW 8 is the doctor, who examined the injured persons on 3.7.85 as Medical Officer, Bengabad Primary Health Centre. He proved the injuries of these two witnesses, vide Ext.2 and 2/A. According to him, PW 2 Bundo Sao has got two bruises on left hand and left knee while PW 3 has got three bruises as well as one incised wound of left Tibia and one facture with swelling on the knee joint. He has admitted that he is not mentioned the number of x -ray plates in his report, on the basis of which facture was mentioned at injury No. 2 of PW 3.