Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.23 of 1990 =========================================================== 1. Algu Yadav (aged 32 years) son of Jamadar Yadav. 2. Dharichhan Gonr (aged 70 years) son of Budhiram Gonr, both residents of village Sahaiya, P.S. Kateya, Distt-Gopalganj. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mrs. Meeta Sinha, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shivesh Chandra Mishra, APP =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI) Date: 24-08-2012 The two appellants Algu Yadav and Dharichhan Gonr having been found guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo RI for life as also appellant Dharichhan Gonr found further guilty for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] and directed to undergo RI for four months with a direction for running his sentence concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj vide his judgment dated 07.12.1989 passed in Sessions Trial No. 56 of 1986 have filed the instant appeal. 2. Informant (PW-4) on 30.10.1984 at about 8:30 a.m. having carried dead body of his brother, Mukhlal Sah (deceased) in company of his remaining brothers, Mokhtar, Manbodh, Feku and others to Kateya Police Station had given his Fardbeyan to the Officer Incharge wherein it was stated that that on the preceding night while he was sleeping at his tiled bangla (out Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.23 of 1990 dt.24-08-2012 2 house) lying west to his house over a cot, his brother Mukhlal (deceased) was sleeping in his palani situated south to his house and his another brother, Mokhtar (PW-1) was sleeping inside the house whereas Manbodh (PW-3) was sleeping by his side and his another brother, Feku was sleeping at his Khalihan at a distance of four Bighas north to that place. He had also stated that he awoke from his sleep on hearing barking sound over and he came out from his bangla (out house) with lathi in one hand and a torch in another and inquired as to who was there. He had claimed that in torch light he had seen his co-villagers, appellants Algu and Dharichhan out of whom Algu was armed with country made gun and Dharichhan was carrying a torch who were also accompanied with 3-4 unknown persons. He had alleged that appellant Dharichhan along with other unknown persons came near him, snatched away his lathi and began to assault him which was stopped only after intervention of appellant Algu who had said that he is not the actual person. Then according to informant all of them had gone to place of Manbodh and again appellant Algu said that he also was not the actual person. Then, thereafter the informant had alleged they had gone to the place of Mukhlal and after identifying him they began to assault him with Lathi. The informant had stated that thereafter he had heard sound of firing and crying sound raised by his brother over which made him believe that his brother has been murdered. He has also claimed that, the accused persons thereafter began to proceed towards him and he had escaped after raising alarm. The informant had stated that on hullah raised by him, Indradeo Chaukidar (DW-1), Ramsewak (DW-2) along with others came to whom he had disclosed the entire occurrence. The motive of such occurrence has been suggested by the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.23 of 1990 dt.24-08-2012 3 informant to be ongoing longstanding civil as well as criminal litigation between both the parties. It has further been disclosed by him that on a previous occasion appellant Algu had threatened him of dire consequences. While giving his aforesaid Fardbeyan to police he had also produced a shell (used cartridge) found by him at the place of occurrence. 3. On the basis of aforesaid Fardbeyan a formal First Information Report of Kateya P.S. Case No. 36/84 was registered for offence under [STATUTE] in which [STATUTE] was added on 28.11.1985 and the police after conducting this investigation had submitted charge-sheet against the accused persons whereupon cognizance was taken and the court below finding the offence to be exclusively triable by court of sessions, the case was accordingly committed to the court of session where the trial commenced and had concluded leading to impugned judgment having the subject matter of instant appeal. 4. The defence case as is evident from mode of cross- examination as well as statement of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of complete innocence as well as their false implication. It had further been submitted that the deceased was actually done to death by unknown criminals in altogether different manner but on account of longstanding animosity amongst the parties, the appellants have been falsely implicated. 5. In order to substantiate its case prosecution had examined altogether six PWs out of whom PW-1 is Mukhtar Sah, PW-2 is Amarnath Tiwari, PW-3 is Manbodh Sah, PW-4 is Dehari Sah, PW-5 is Fulbati Devi and Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.23 of 1990 dt.24-08-2012 4 PW-6 is Dr. Prabhat Kumar Singh. Side by side the prosecution had also exhibited documents, namely First Information Report Ext-1, Inquest Report Ext-2, production list Ext-3, Seizure list Ext-4 and postmortem report Ext-5. The defence had also examined two DWs out of whom DW-1, is Indradeo Chaukidar and DW-2 is Ram Sewak Hazam, the two FIR named witnesses but had not exhibited any documentary evidence. 6. While assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence learned lawyer for the appellant has submitted that the finding recorded by the learned lower court happens to be out and out by way of mechanical appreciation instead of judicial appreciation of the

Applicable IPC Section: 337

Statute Text:
Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing hurt by an act which endangers human life, etc. Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.