SITARAM TANTY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.5.2000 passed by Sri Ram Prabodh Singh, 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 435 of 1995 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offences under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of rupees two thousand and in default of payment of the fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year. The appellant has also been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. However, both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, is that a panchayat was convened comprising of a few persons of the village as members of the panchayat for settling a land dispute between the appellant and his brother Bahadur Tanti. The members of the panchayat proceeded to the disputed land along with the appellant and his younger brother and one of the members of the panchayat inquired from the appellant as to why he had erected a fence around the land which was allotted to the share of the appellant's younger brother by the decision of the previous panchayat. Upon this the appellant became furious and snatched a tangi from his wife who was standing nearby and assaulted the member namely Yogeshwar Singh (PW 10) on his head with the blunt portion of the tangi as a result of which the victim fell on the ground unconscious owing to the grievous injury caused to him. The persons standing nearby tried to snatch the tangi from the hand of the appellant while he was wielding it and in the process, he caused hurt on the leg of the informant Ghutan Baraik (PW 12). The persons who were present there could manage to restrain the appellant from indulging in further violence. Since it was already dark, the FIR was lodged in the morning on the next day with the police station by the informant/injured PW 12.

(3.) THE trial Court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant. Charges were framed against the appellant to which the appellant pleaded not guilty. The case of the appellant in defence was denial of the occurrence.