SAMIR ANSARI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant Samir Ansari has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 14 TH February, 2001 and order of sentence dated 19 TH February, 2001 passed by Shri D.G.R. Patnaik 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Bokaro at Chas in Sessions Trial No. 348 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 325/323 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years for the offence under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and six months R.I. for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. both the sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 20.10.1992 the informant Basir Ansari was in his house situated in Ansari Mohalla p.s. Chas, district Bokaro when he saw that exchange of hot words was taking place between his wife and the wife of the appellant. According to him he went and rebuked his wife but in the mean time the appellant came there along with tangi and gave a blow on the head of his wife. It is further stated that she fell down bleeding profusely from her head after which he was assaulted with Lathi on his head, The incident was seen by the mohalla people who carried both of them for treatment in Bokaro General Hospital. The Statement of the informant was recorded by Chas police at about 1 p.m. and Chas P.S. Case No. 72 of 1992 was registered under Sections 307, 323, 324, 326 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. The police investigated the case and finally submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 324, 326, 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions and charges were framed against the appellant under the aforesaid sections.

(3.) I have given anxious consideration to the points raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant along with the impugned judgment and the evidences available in the case records. The defence has brought on record charge sheet of Chas P.S. Case No. 71 of 1992 and FIR for an occurrence of the same date and time in which the appellant has alleged assault made by five persons including the informant, vide Ext -A. On perusal of this FIR it appears that some occurrence has taken place on 20.10.1992 in the morning in which the appellant has also received injuries. However this fact has been denied by the prosecution witnesses vehemently. The prosecution has examined altogether 10 witnesses out of whom P.W. 10 is a formal witness; P.W. 8 and 9 are doctors who examined P.W. 6 and 5 respectively. P.W. 8 has found a lacerated wound on the scalp of P.W. 6 who mentioned the injury was grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting instrument. The injury on the informant has been mentioned simple in nature.