Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.238 OF 1999 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 30TH AUGUST, 1999 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 31ST AUGUST, 1999 PASSED BY SHRI VISHAMBHAR UPADHYAY, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, DARBHANGA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 203 OF 1992 ARISING OUT OF BAHERA POLICE STATION CASE NO. 131 OF 1990 =========================================================== 1. RADHEY SADAI, SON OF LATE SHANKAR SADAI 2. YOGI SADAI, SON OF LATE SHANKAR SADAI 3. MAHENDRA SADAI, SON OF LATE SHANKAR SADAI 4. BRAHMDEO SADAI, SON OF LATE SHANKAR SADAI ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JAYANTIPUR, POLICE STATION BAHERA, DISTRICT DARBHANGA …. ….. …. …. …. .... .... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR …. …. ….. ….. …. .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. AJAY KUMAR THAKUR MR. AMIT KUMAR MR. MD.IMTEYAZ AHMAD FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-10-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The above named four appellants have been convicted by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 1992 for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. No separate sentence has been passed under [STATUTE] . 2. As per the case made out in the First Information Report by Shiv Shankar Bhagat. It is stated that he was going to his village early in the morning when the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.238 of 1999 dt.01-10-2012 2 / 8 2 appellants stopped him and asked him not to pass through their lands, on which the informant is stated to have claimed that the lands belong to him, which resulted in the appellants assaulting him. The brother of the informant intervened and he too was assaulted by the appellants. On hearing the alarm, the uncle of the informant, namely, Ram Tahal Das also came to the place of occurrence and he too was assaulted. On hearing the sound of fight taking place, Kapileshwar Thakur, Nagey Thakur, Ram Mohan Jha and Ram Kumar Jha came to the place of occurrence and saw the appellants assaulting the informant and others. The informant went to the petitioner and lodged his fardbayan and from the Police Station, he along with the other injured persons were sent to the hospital for examination. Initially, a sanha was instituted which was later treated as fardbayan of the informant. The injury reports have been marked as Exhibits 1, 1/1 and 1/2 which have been sent to the Police Station on 02.08.1992. After which, PW 10 was appointed as the Investigating Officer of this case to examine the witnesses and the place of occurrence and submit chargesheet in this case. 3. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that the case was false and the injury reports have been produced at a belated stage and that the appellants have been dragged in this case due to land dispute. From the cross-examination, it would appear that a Harijan Baithka had been constructed on Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.238 of 1999 dt.01-10-2012 3 / 8 3 the land belonging to the informant by the appellants, which has resulted in six cases being filed by the informant against the appellants. On behalf of the defence, two witnesses have also been examined to indicate that the Harijan Baithka has been built by the appellants on the lands belonging to informant. 4. To support the allegation as made out in the First Information Report, the prosecution has examined 11 witnesses, out of which PWs 9 and 11 are formal witnesses, PW 8 is the doctor whereas PW 10 is the Investigating Officer of this case. The other witnesses are eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 5. PW 1 Ram Mohan Jha is named in the First Information Report as a witness to the occurrence. He supports the prosecution version regarding the occurrence and states that he was 200 yards from the place of occurrence when it took place. He claims that he did not intervene in the ensuing fight that was taking place. He denies that he had stated before the Investigating Officer that the informant and another had fallen in the wheat field. The attention of the Investigating Officer has been drawn to the statement made by this witness as paragraph 10, wherein the Investigating Officer has specifically stated that PW 1 has stated that the informant and others have fallen in the wheat field when he reached at the place of occurrence. The argument on behalf of the appellants Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.238 of 1999 dt.01-10-2012 4 / 8 4 is that the place of occurrence has been changed. In fact, this argument is not tenable in view of the fact that while showing the place of occurrence, the informant had shown the route taken by him when the occurrence commenced, and eventually they were assaulted and fell down in the wheat field. In view of the statement made before the Court, there is no reason to disbelieve the deposition of PW 1. 6. PW 2 Nagey Thakur is also mentioned as a witness to the occurrence in the First Information Report. However, he has stated in his cross-examination that when he reached at the place of occurrence, he found that the appellants had left the place of occurrence. In view of the aforesaid statement, he cannot be treated as an eye-witness to the manner of assault. 7. PW 3 Ram Tahal Das is the uncle of the informant and one of the injured of this case. He supports the prosecution case and states that there is enmity between the parties and that there are two cases pending between them. On consideration of evidence, this Court comes to the conclusion that the evidence of PW 3 cannot be disbelieved. 8. PW 4 Kapileshwar Thakur has claimed himself to be an eye-witness to the occurrence. He reached the place of occurrence on hearing the noise and saw

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.