Case Facts:
Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.10 of 2001 dt.17-08-2012 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (SJ) No.10 of 2001 (Against the judgment and order dated 31.5.2001 passed by Mr. Keshri Prasad Singh, 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Buxar in Sessions Trial No.359 of 1990 under [STATUTE] .) =========================================================== State Of Bihar .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. Ajay Kumar Pandey S/o Kashi Nath Pandey 2. Triloki Tiwary 3. Anjan Tiwary 4. Hari Shankar Mishra @ Bare Mishra S/o Kedar Nath Mishra all resident of Dumraon, P. S.-Dumraon, District-Buxar .... .... (Accused) -Respondent/s with Criminal Revision No. 563 of 2001 =========================================================== Madan Mohan Singh, son of late Bhagwati Singh, resident of village-Hidayat Khan Ki Gali, Ward No.2, Dumraon, P.S.-Dumraon, District-Buxar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. State Of Bihar 2. Ajay Kumar Pandey, S/O late Kashi Nath Pandey 3. Triloki Tiwary, S/O late Kanhaiya Tiwari 4. Anjan Tiwari, S/o of Ganesh Tiwari 5. Hari Shankar Mishra @ Bare Mishra, S/O Kedar Mishra .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In G. APP. (SJ) No. 10 of 2001) For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra- A.P.P. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. N. Prasad- (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Nikesh Kumar (In CR. REV. No. 563 of 2001) For the Revisionist : Mr. Udit Narayan Singh-Adv. Mr. Radha Krishna Singh-Adv. Mr. Rajiv Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. N. Prasad- (Amicus Curiae) Mr. Nikesh Kumar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANDHATA SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-08-2012 Mandhate Singh, J. 1. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the day of occurrence i.e. on 12.3.1990 at about 7.00 p.m., informant was sitting in his room (Kothri). Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.10 of 2001 dt.17-08-2012 2 His nephew came and told that accused persons were beating him. Accused persons came at the door, informant’s father enquired them as why they were beating informant’s nephew. He was assaulted by a piece of brick. His head broken, informant came out from his room. He was stabbed by accused Ajay Kumar Pandey causing injuries to him. Witnesses came and saved him. After concluding the trial accused persons have been acquitted of their respective charge. 2. In all, six witnesses are examined in the case, they are PW-1 Bhagwan Das, PW-2 Kesho Thathera, PW-3 Surya Kumar Singh, PW-4 Anil Kumar Singh, PW-5 Madan Mohan Singh, informant of the case and PW-6 Dr. Chunni Lal Prasad. The witnesses except PW-6 are stating about taking place of the incident, PW-2 to PW-5 more elaborately, but PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 are declared hostile by the prosecution as they are stating about taking place of no occurrence in their presence in cross-examination. Of them, PW-2 is injured witness also and in cross-examination, he is stating about receiving of the injury due to his fall. PW-4 and PW-5 more categorically and elaborately are stating about receiving of injury to Anil Kumar Singh from Ajay Kumar Pandey and two others. Ajay Kumar Pandey is said assailant of PW-5 and his father also. More specifically, it is said that grand father of PW-4 was assaulted by him by means of a piece of brick on his head and his uncle was assaulted by knife thrice below and above knee and at Panjra (a part of body). Bhagwat Singh grand father is said dead. 3. PW-5 is another injured, informant of the case. He also repeats the incident in same manner about causing injuries by Ajay Kumar Pandey. Further, they (PWs-4 and 5) state about causing of assault by Triloki Tiwari to Kesho Thathera, but Kesho Thathera himself in Paragraph-7 states that Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.10 of 2001 dt.17-08-2012 3 he received injury on fall. So, assault by this accused along with involvement of Anjan Tiwari and Hari Shankar Mishra to whom none is naming, has rightly been doubted or disbelieved. 4. Injuries of Anil Kumar Singh, Madan Mohan Singh and Bhagwat Singh are corroborated by PW-6 Dr. Chunni Lal Prasad. Witnesses are disbelieved that they are interested witnesses; discrepancy is there in their statements, Investigating Officer is not examined, and doctor who initially examined the injured is not examined. 5. Witness nos.4 and 5 may be named interested witnesses, but are injured also, their statements is more reliable. Only non-examination of local people or turning hostile of three of the witnesses may never be taken to doubt causing of injury by accused Ajay Kumar Pandey. PW-6 is one of the doctors of Medical Board though has examined the injured persons later, but injuries are found on the same part of the body as was found originally by the first doctor. 6. First Information Report mentions about repeated knife blow, but naming a single part of the body that is above knee. So, it cannot be said that all the three injuries were caused at the same part of the body and just after the first information report when his further statement was recorded, he is stating about receiving of the three injuries. Other witnesses also corroborating the same. So, it cannot be said a discrepancy. Investigating Officer is not examined in the case. In the incident, no mark of violence is found on the place of occurrence nor any of the accused persons has received any injury nor attention on this point has been drawn by the defence to any of the witnesses which could only cause prejudice to the defence. So, in this case, there is no prejudice at all to the defence due to non-examination of the Investigating Patna High Court G. APP. (SJ) No.10 of 2001 dt.17-08-2012 4 Officer, so is not vital. 7. Now, it is clear that prosecution witnesses are sufficient to establish the guilt against opposite party no.1 only as assailant of the informant by means of knife of PW-4 Anil Kumar Singh by means of lathi and to Bhagwat Singh by means of a piece of brick. Injury of Bhagw

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.