IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 210 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.1997 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 121of 1988.) ================================================= BHOLA RAI, SON OF SARYUG RAI OF VILLAGE RATANPURA, P.S. BHAGWANPUR, DISTT. VAISHALI .... .... APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT ================================================= Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. D.P. Choudhary, Adv. Mrs. Manju Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Kr. Singh No. 1 , A.P.P. ================================================= P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment but instead of any substantive sentence, he has been left on due admonition by the judgment dated 8.5.1997 by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur, in Sessions Trial No. 121 of 1988. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.3.1985 when the Informant went the house of Brijnandan Rai to get back his she goat, the accused persons variously armed came to his Bathan and began to abuse him. It is further stated that the Appellant gave a Bhala blow on left chest of the Informant whereas others assaulted with lathis on account of which he was injured. 3. The defence pleaded innocence and stated that in fact, PW-6, the Informant and other co-accused persons had indulged in assault for which a complaint had been instituted against the Informant and others and they were convicted which Judgment was exhibited as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.210 of 1997 dt.06-07-2011 2 Exbt.-A by the defence. 4. During trial, the prosecution examined 14 witnesses out of whom PW-1 and PW-2 have been declared hostile whereas PW-3 is a formal witness. PW-4, PW-5 and PW-8 are eye witnesses out of whom PW-8 is the Informant. PW-14 is the Investigating Officer and PW-6 is a hear-say witness. PW-10 is the Doctor who examined the Informant and found one injury on his chest and an abrasion just below it. 5. On going through the evidence of the eye witnesses, I find that there is complete consistency in their evidence with regard to the manner of occurrence and the fact that the Appellant had assaulted and caused injury on the Informant with a Bhala. The same is further corroborated by the Doctor PW-10 who found such injuries on the person of the Appellant. 6. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed. Since the Appellant has already been admonished, there is no further need for admonition. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, 6th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI