Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 10 OF 1995 In the matter of an appeal under Section 374(2) and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ************ Krishna Ram, S/o Sri Jagarnath Ram, R/o Village- Dhanawati, Police Station-Siwan Mofassil, District-Siwan. ……(Appellant) Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR-------(Respondent) ************* For the Appellant : Mr. Raghav Prasad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, APP. ************** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J. The appellant has been convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years by a judgment dated 18.01.1995 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Siwan in S.Tr. No. 269 of 1993. The case of the prosecution is that on 16.08.1992 while the villagers were watching a video show the electricity was disconnected on account of which the accused persons came out from their house and began to abuse to which the informant’s brother Krishna Ram protested at which the appellant is said to have given single “Chhura” blow on the stomach of the deceased who later died. The charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/34 IPC and the appellant and others were also charged under Section 302/34 IPC but convicted as noted above. The prosecution in all examined eight witnesses out of whom P.W 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are formal witnesses whereas P.W. 4 is the informant and P.W. 6 is the Doctor who held the post-mortem examination. P.W. 5 is the full brother of the deceased and even though he 2 deposed on the manner of occurrence as an eye witness he was disbelieved by the Trial Court. The conviction of the appellant solely relied on eye- witness of P.W. 4, the informant. The same is being assailed by the counsel for the appellant on the ground that in cross- examination he has stated that when he came to the place of occurrence he had seen his brother injured with and, therefore, he is not an eye-witness. However, this Court is not inclined to take out a single sentence of P.W. 4 in judging the eye-witness account given by him and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to reject him as an eye-witness. In view of the consistent statement of P.W. 4 as well as the Doctor who corroborated the injuries sustained by the deceased, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment under appeal. However, in the facts of the case the conviction of the appellant is converted to one under Section 326 IPC and he is sentenced to a period already undergone by him. The appeal is dismissed with the modifications as noted above. Further, the appellant (if alive) is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- to the family of the deceased within a period of eight weeks of receipt of notices from the Trial Court and in case he fails to do so he shall undergo an imprisonment of six months RI. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, the 18th April, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/-