MD.SAMSHAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 27,8.2002 passed by Additional Judicial Commissioner -cum -Special Judge VI, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 455 of 1998 whereby and whereunder all the appellants stand convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No. 1 Samshad Khan was sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for seven years whereas appellant Nos. 2 to 4 were sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for five years.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to this appeal are that in the morning of 11th of April 1998, son of the informant was beaten by son of appellant Kamal Khan. The wife of the informant went to protest with the wife of appellant Kamal Khan. In the meantime, the informant arrived at and he also protested with appellant Kamal Khan why the children used to beat his son. At this, stage, appellant Samshad Khan assaulted the informant with 'Chapar', a sharp cutting weapon, on his head and left arm. Other appellants also participated in further assault. The informant raised alarms on which villagers arrived and saved him from further assault. He was brought to RIMS, for treatment where his statement was recorded at 11.30 hours, same day, by the police.

(3.) THE present appeal has been preferred mainly on the grounds that the contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have not been considered by the trial Court. It is further submitted that appellant Samshad Khan used to run a teashop and he was not present at the spot. According to learned Counsel for the appellant, only interested witnesses have supported the case. It is further submitted that since the Incident was the result of flex up of quarrel between children, the parties are now living in peace. According to learned Counsel, injures found in the informant were not of grievous and serious in nature. As such, the conviction under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not maintainable, it is also submitted that the sole eye -witness of the occurrence, wife of the informant (P.W. 2), has given a different version of assault. It was further pointed out that P.W. 3, own brother of the informant, has admitted during cross - examination in paragraph -13 that he did not saw the actual assault and the place of occurrence was shifted by the informant himself. Therefore, the parties being close agnates now living in peace, the conviction of the appellants may be set aside.