JAGDISH CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. I Garhwa in S.T. Case No.50 of 2003 arising out of Bhawnathpur P.S. Case No.67/1995 corresponding to G.R. No.742/1995, whereby and whereunder the sole appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and thereby sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to pay fine he must further undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief: - as per the written complaint of informant Vijay Prasad dated 26.12.1995 that on that date at 10:30 a.m. Rajo Devi wife of Jagdish Choudhary (appellant) was abusing his mother near the house of Mukesh, informant reached there and objected her from abusing, at that moment, Jagdish Choudhary came from his house having Chura and with intention to kill and assault him resulting into injury upon the informant and thereby a criminal case has set on motion. On the basis of the aforesaid written complaint and accordingly the police had arrested her, a case for the offence under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed before the Court of Session for commencement of trial wherein the charge has been framed for the offence under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellant has been subjected to the aforesaid trial. The prosecution has produced altogether five witnesses for proving the guilt against the appellant and on the basis of the deposition rendered by them, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code and in consequence thereof the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in case of default to pay a fine he must further simple imprisonment for one month. The appellant being aggrieved with the aforesaid finding given by the trial Court is before this Court under its appellate jurisdiction raising the following points:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwari, while arguing the case has submitted that it is a case of conviction only on the basis of the depositions of P.W. 4 namely, Vijay Prasad who happens to be informant and P.W. 5 Sunaina Devi who happens to be mother of P.W.