Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.128 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 24TH MARCH, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR LAL, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, NAWADAH IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 31 OF 1999/02 OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF GOVINDPUR POLICE STATION CASE NO. 42 OF 1997 =========================================================== 1. LALAN YADAV, SON OF KESHO MAHTO 2. JANAKWA DEVI, WIFE OF LALAN YADAV BOTH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADHOPOUR, POLICE STATION GOVINDPUR, DISTRICT NAWADA .... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. BHAVESH KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. JHARKHANDI UPADHYAY, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 24th March, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1999/02 of 1999. Initially, the appellants were charged under [STATUTE] , but were finally convicted under [STATUTE] . The appellant no. 1 has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years having inflicted tangi blow on the informant and his wife, appellant no. 2, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. 2. The First Information Report was instituted on the basis of the statement of the informant (deceased) on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.128 of 2000 dt.17-07-2012 2 / 7 2 27.11.1997 at about 10:30 AM for an occurrence which took place at 8 AM. The prosecution case is that the appellant no. 1 was fencing the road and thereby allegedly blocking it. The informant Damar Prasad Yadav stopped him from fencing the road, which led to exchange of hot words. It is alleged that Lalan Yadav first inflicted two lathis blow and thereafter inflicted a “tangi” blow on the head of the informant, as a result of which he fell down. He was taken to the Referral Hospital at Govindpur. He stated in his fardbayan that apart from his son, Ram Khelawan Yadav, Hari Yadav and Anil Yadav had seen the occurrence. The deceased was examined at Referrral Hospital, Govindpur and was referred to the Nawada Hospital, from where he was referred to P.M.C.H., Patna as his condition was serious. He died on 10.12.1997. 3. Altogether the prosecution has examined ten witnesses in this case. PWs 7 and 10 are the doctors, PW 6 is the Investigating Officer of this case and the other witnesses claim to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 4. PW 1 Sumitra Devi has not mentioned as an eye-witness in the First Information Report, but she claims that she had accompanied her husband when he went to stop the appellant no. 1 from obstructing the road. At paragraph 10 of her deposition, this witness has stated that her husband remained unconscious throughout, even at Patna, and he never regained consciousness. A suggestion was given that the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.128 of 2000 dt.17-07-2012 3 / 7 3 deceased had fallen down due to overdose of alcohol and hurt his head, as a result of which he received the injuries. It would appear that PW 1 cannot be relied upon inasmuch as she is not named in the First Information Report and her presence at the place of occurrence has also not been acknowledged by any of the witnesses. 5. PW 2 Ram Khelwan Yadav is named in the First Information Report, he is the nephew of the deceased. He admits that he came to the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of raised voices and thereafter he saw the manner in which the occurrence took place. According to this witness, the land on which the appellant no. 1 was putting up his fence belongs to appellant no. 1 and his brothers. 6. PW 3 Hari Yadav is also named as eye-witness in the First Information Report. He supports the prosecution case in its entirety. He admits that he came to the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of raised voices, he saw Damar lying on the ground and blood was oozing out of his head. This witness also admits that the land on which Lalan Yadav, appellant no. 1, was putting up a fence, belonged to him. At paragraph 3, this witness stated that Lalan Yadav is his own brother. 7. PW 4 Gopal Kumar on hearing the commotion went towards it and heard the exchange of hot words and also claims to have witnessed the assault. At paragraph 5, this Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.128 of 2000 dt.17-07-2012 4 / 7 4 witness is rather confused when he states that Lalan Yadav was not fencing his own land and thereafter explains that he was actually fencing his (Lalan) own lands. This witness has not been named in the First Information Report as a witness to the occurrence. 8. PW 5 Ram Balak Prasad Yadav is the son of the deceased. He has proved the signature of his father on the fardbayan and has supported the prosecution case. There is no discrepancy in his cross-examination, which would lead this Court to discard his testimony. 9. PW 7 Dr. Ashok Kumar Yadav has conducted the postmortem and has proved his signature on the postmortem report, which has been marked as Exhibit-4. 10. PW 10 Dr. M. D. Tiwary was posted as the Medical Officer at the relevant time in the Primary Health Centre, Govindpur. He was the man who first examined the deceased. It has been pointed out on behalf of the appellants that this witness has not mentioned in the injury report prepared by him that the injury would in ordinary course lead to the death of the patient. It is submitted that this part has subsequently been added before the Trial Court. 11. PW 6 Anil Kumar Gupta is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has examined the place of occurrence but he has not contributed much to the prosecution case, except to su

Applicable IPC Section: 304

Statute Text:
Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, If act by which the death is caused is done with intention of causing death, etc. Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.