Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.8 of 1997 **** Against the judgment and order, dated 21.12.1996, passed by Sri Paras Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, III, Muzaffarpur, in S. Tr. No. 272 of 1988 **** Nagendra Thakur, S/O late Sheo Nandan Thakur, resident of village Maisaha, P.s. Keoti, district Muzaffarpur .. Appellant Versus The State Of Bihar .. Respondent **** For the Appellant .. Mr. Shashank Kumar Choudhary, Adv. For the Respondent .. Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta APP **** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Heard the counsel for the appellant and the State. 2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307/34 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant, Kapildeo Pandey, that on 10.06.1980 at about 06.00 a.m. when he was going to Prahladpur for marriage of his daughter with Rs.5,700/- and withdrawing Rs. 26,100/- from the State Bank of India, Kanti, reached Muzaffarpur Bus Stand at 04.30 p.m., met Mannu Singh at Sutappati 2 and went to Shalimar Hotel and stayed there in a room with Mannu Singh. On one bed Mannu Singh and Nagendra Thakur and on the other the informant was sleeping. The informant woke up in the mid night at about 02.30 a.m., when Mannu Singh gave one bhujali/khukhari blow on the informant and Nagendra Thakur climbed on the body of informant, in the meantime, khukhari fell down from the hand of Mannu Singh and then Nagendra Thakur assaulted the informant by bhala causing injury on the neck, chest and back. The informant made alarm to save himself then the police broke open the door of the room and came to the rescue of informant. There is further allegation that the accused persons have committed the occurrence to snatch his money. 4. On the fardbeyan first information report lodged and after investigation the charge sheet submitted for offence under Sections 307, 396, 326 and 323 of the Penal Code, cognizance taken, case was committed to the Court of sessions and, thereafter, the charge was framed under Sections 394 and 397 of the Penal Code against Mannu Singh. However, during the trial Mannu Singh died and subsequently charge framed against Nagendra Thakur for offence under Section 307/34 of the Penal Code. 5. However, during the trial fourteen witnesses were examined along with the other documentary evidences, which are Exhibits 1 to 1/8. 6. Considering the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction and sentence was recorded, as mentioned above. 3 7. However, prosecution case that occurrence took place at Shalimar Hotel. During trial witnesses 1 to 7 have turned hostile. There is only evidence of the informant and, further, the doctor has found thirteen injuries out of which injuries 2, 11 and 12 are only grievous rest are simple and superficial. It has, further, been stated that there is no motive for the occurrence. 8. The evidence of P.W. 8, the informant, has fully supported the prosecution case and the oral evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. The evidence of doctor, P.W. 10, is that thirteen injuries were found and P.W. 14 also supported the prosecution case. 9. The defence of the ap Nagendra Thakur that he did not make any assault and there is no motive, but, there is eye witness to the occurrence. The police came on hulla and found the informant injured. There were two more persons in the room who said that they were in connection with finalizing of some accounts. It is admitted that there was scuffle and assault by khukhari, hence, the plea that there is no motive does not establish. 10. Having regard to the fact that the participation of the appellant has been established and there is allegation of assault, which has been corroborated by the medical evidence. The witnesses who broke open the door deposed that three persons came out from the same room and the informant was injured. Hence, I do not find any reason that the occurrence has not taken place. There is allegation of assault and the doctor has found thirteen injuries, three are grievous, but, there is no mention that injuries either simple or cumulative effect of all were 4 dangerous to life. However, I do not find merit to disturb the finding of conviction recorded by the lower Court. However, the occurrence is of the year 1980 and 31 years have already elapsed. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that at the time of the judgment the age of the appellant was recorded as 50 years in 1996 and contends that the appellant might have more than 65 years. 11. Having regard to the fact that the injuries found on the person of the appellant was not found to be dangerous to life and 31 years have already elapsed and the appellant has remained in jail before and after conviction, hence, ends of justice shall be met by sentencing the appellant for the period undergone. 12. With the modification in sentence for period already undergone, this appeal is dismissed. ( Gopal Prasad, J. ) The Patna High Court, The 12th day of July, 2011, N.A.F.R. S.A.