ETWA URAON Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Ss. 148/323 and 304 read with Sec. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for one year and five years respectively, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 219 of 1987.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that on 3.11.1986, informant Mango Uraon was sitting in front of his house situated in Mauza Pradhanpali when accused Soma Uraon (since dead) came there and asked him to compromise the case pending between them. As further stated, when the informant replied that he. will think over it, altercation started. In the meantime, the appellants along with others arrived at the place of occurrence armed with lathi and danda and started assaulting Mango Uraon and deceased Bishram Kujur who came to his rescue. The appellants fled away when the villagers started arriving. In the meantime, Bishram Kujur having received head injuries was removed for his treatment to. Manoharpur, Primary Health Center and thereafter Rourkella for better treatment.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the prosecution case depending upon the information received vide Station Diary Entry No. 42 dated 3.11.1986 has not been brought on record. It is further asserted that the death of deceased Bishram Kujur could not proved caused by assault made by the appellants. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that even if the prosecution version is accepted, non -examination of doctors treating and conducting postmortem examination as well as the investigating officer of this case was fatal for the prosecution case. According to Mr. Sarkhel, the persons alleged to have been injured during occurrence have not been examined to prove the prosecution case beyond doubts. As such, in absence of any medical report regarding cause of death of Bishram Kujur after five days makes the whole prosecution case doubtful. According to learned Counsel, the learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon ocular evidence alone in the case where murder not amounting to culpable homicide has been held committed by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges.