Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Govt. Appeal (DB) No.48 of 1989 ---------- Against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.1989 passed by Sri L.M.Kujur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 845 of 1986. =========================================================== The State of Bihar ....... Appellant/s Versus 1. Om Prakash Sah 2. Ranjeet Sah, both are sons of Ramswaroop Sah 3. Ramswaroop Sah son of Budhu Sah 4. Suresh Sah 5. Gauri Sah, both are sons of Ramswaroop Sah all are residents of Nayagaon, P.S.Kotwali, District Munger Accused-- Respondent/s With Criminal Revision No. 691 of 1989 ------ Against the judgment of acquittal dated 22.08.1989 passed by Sri L.M.Kujur, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 845 of 1986. =========================================================== Sunil Sah @ Pradeep Sah son of Budhan Sah, resident of village Naya Gaon, P.O.Basudeopur, P.S.Kotwali, District Munger ------ Informant- Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Sri Om Prakash Sah 3. Gauri Sah 4. Suresh Sah 5. Ranjit Sah, all sons of Ram Swaroop Sah 6. Ram Swaroop Sah son of Budhu Sah 7. Bisundeo Sah 8. Brahamdeo Sah 9. Prabhu Sah, all are sons of unknown, all are residernts of Mohalla Nayagaon, Village lBasudeopur P.S.Kotwali,District Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : (In G. APP. (DB) No. 48 of 1989) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashwini Kumari Sinha, APP For the Respondent/s : None (In CR. REV. No. 691 of 1989) For the Petitioner/s : None For the Respondent/s: None For the State : Mr.Ashwini Kumar Sinha. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.48 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA) Date: 18-09-2012 -------------- Cr. Revision No. 691 of 1989 has been tagged for hearing along with this Govt. Appeal (DB) No. 48 of 1989 and as such they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the above cases have been filed against the judgment dated 22.08.1989 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Munger in Sessions Trial No. 845 of 1986 whereby all the eight accused persons namely, Om Prakash Sah, Gauri Sah,Suresh Sah, Ranjiet Sah, Ramswarup Sah , Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Sah and Prabhu Sah (opposite party no.2 to 9 in Cr.Revision No. 691 of 1989) have been acquitted of the charges. 3. The informant Sunil Sah (P.W.6) stated on 25.06.1986 at 5.00 P.M. before the Officer-in-charge in Sadar Hospital, Munger that at preceding 3.00 P.M., he was going to the betel shop of his Kishto Sah and when he reached near the house of accused Ramswarup Sah, he was abused by Om Prakash Sah. When he objected it, Om Prakash Sah started assaulting him. The informant raised hulla, upon which his brother Kishto Sah came and when he tried to rescue him, he and informant both were assaulted by Ranjeet Sah, Ramswarup Sah, Suresh Sah and Gauri Sah by lathi and brick bats. Thereafter many villagers namely, Rajendra Sah Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.48 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 3 (PW3), Om Prakash Chaudhary (P.W.7), Ramdeo Tanti (P.W.5) and others came and witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter the accused persons escaped. A case bearing Kotwali P.S.Case No. 223 dated 25.06.1986 under [STATUTE] was registered but on the next day injured Keshto Sah died. Hence [STATUTE] was added. The matter was investigated into and after completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted, Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges under [STATUTE] were framed against accused Om Prakash Sao and charges under [STATUTE] were framed against all the eight accused persons namely, Gauri Sao, Suresh Sao, Ranjit Sao, Ramswarup Sao, Bishundeo Sao, Brahmdeo Sah, Prabhu Sao and Om Prakash Sao. Charges were explained to the accused persons to which they pleaded innocence. Hence trial proceeded. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether ten witnesses. They are : P.W.1 Md.Hasan, P.W.2 Dr.Sakranand Prasad, P.W.3 Rajendra Sah, P.W.4 Kushami Devi, P.W.5 Ramdeo Tanti, P.W.6 Sunil Sah, P.W.7 Om Prakash, P.W.8 Dilip Prasad Gupta, P.W.9 Harendra Singh and P.W.10 Dr.Nand Kishore Sinha. 5. The defence also examined three witnesses. They are : D.W.1 Charitar Rabidas, D.W.2 Sita ram and D.W.3 Sachchidanand Patna High Court G. APP. (DB) No.48 of 1989 dt.18-09-2012 4 Prasad. 6. The prosecution and the defence both exhibited some documents. 7. The trial court analyzed the evidences and the documents on record and found that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charges beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts and hence order of acquittal was passed and that has been challenged here. 8. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel appearing in Govt. Appeal and nobody responded on behalf of the respondents. So we decided to dispose of the Govt. appeal and the Cr.revision after hearing learned counsel appearing for the State and after perusing the lower court records and the judgment impugned. 9. P.Ws. 3, 5 and 7 were named as witnesses in the fardbeyan whereas P.Ws 1 and 4 were not named as witness in the fardbeyan. P.W.8 was tendered The trial court found that except P.W.6, the informant, no other witnesses have stated about the assault by Bishundeo Sah, Brahmdeo Saho and Prabhu Sah. Their names were not mentioned in the fardbeyan. 10. One fact which came on record was that Ranjit Sah, Neelam Kumari and Dukhni Devi were the persons of the defence who also sustained injuries for which Kotwali P.S. Case No. 224 of 1986 was registered and that injuries were not explained. The trial court found that it Patn

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.