Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 249 0f 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.1997 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 684 of 1986.) ------------ 1. CHANDESHWAR YADAV, SON OF SRI BASAWAN YADAV 2. JAGGAN YADAV 3. RAM NANDAN YADAV SONS OF BHAGERAN YADAV 4. RAMJIWAN YADAV 5. PARMESHWAR YADAV SONS OF LATE SAKALDIP YADAV 6. LAL BABU YADAV 7. RAM BABU YADAV SONS OF SRI JAGGAN YADAV 8. MAHESH YADAV, SON OF RAJDEO YADAV ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAMBHUPURA BHAGIRATH TOLA, P.S. NAUBATPUR, DISTT. PATNA. ------- APPELLANTS. Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR ------- RESPONDENT. -------- For the Appellant : Mr. Nand Kishore Prasad No. II, Adv. For the State : Mr. S.N. Prasad, A.P.P. -------- P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellants No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 8 have been convicted under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year whereas the rest of the Appellants have been convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months. Further the Appellant No. 1 has also been convicted under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Patna, in Sessions Trial No. 684 of 1986 by a judgment dated 13.8.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant, Yogendra Narain Shambhu, is that on 19.10.1984, he along with his uncle Lal Narayan Singh (PW-4) had gone to the Registry office to find out about a certain Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.249 of 1997 dt.20-07-2011 2 piece of land and when they were returning, the accused persons variously armed, surrounded the Informant and his uncle Lal Narayan Singh whom he identified in the flash of torch light. Thereafter, Appellant Chandeshwar Ydav is said to have ordered to kill the informant and his uncle since they have committed fraud upon them. Whereafter, Chandeshwar Yadav, himself, hurled a Garasa blow on the head of the Informant and Appellant Jaggan Yadav hurled a Grasa blow upon the Informant on his palm on account of which he fell down. Then Ram Babu Yadav and Lal Babu Yadav assaulted him with lathi causing injury on his back and left arm respectively. The Informant’s uncle Lal Narayan Singh intervened in the assault at which he was also assaulted by Ramnandan Yadav and Ramjivan Yadav with Garasa whereas Mahesh Yadav hurled a Fasuli blow but it hurt his left hand when he warded the same. When he fell down, Parmeshwar Yadav assaulted him with lathi causing injury on his back and right thigh. Appellant Chandeshwar Yadav also committed theft of money and his wrist watch etc. On their shouts, some witnesses who were doing irrigation in the area, rushed to the place of occurrence, and saw the accused persons. The Informant and PW-4, Lal Narayan Singh were removed to the Hospital and examined by the Doctor. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, four witnesses have been examined out of which PW-1 is the Informant himself whereas PW-4 Lal Narayan Singh is the next witnesses and also the factum of the occurrence. PW-3 Niranjan Kumar @ Niraj is named in the First Information Report and an eye witness to the occurrence whereas PW-2 is the Doctor who examined the Informant and Lal Narayan Singh. The Investigating Officer has not been examined in the present case. 4. During trial, all the three witnesses stated that on 19.10.1984 when the Informant and his uncle were returning home and had reached near Bhagirath Tola, the accused persons came there and on the exhortation of Chandeshwar Yadav, he himself assaulted the Informant whereas the rest of Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.249 of 1997 dt.20-07-2011 3 the accused persons variously assaulted the Informant and his uncle. PW-2, the Doctor who examined the injured on the date of the occurrence i.e. on 20.10.1984, in the Referral Hospital, deposed that on an examination of PW-4, Lal Narayan Singh, he found one incised wound on the left occipital region and lacerated wound on right parietal region whereas the rest of the injuries were on the other parts of the body. Altogether he had sustained eight injuries out of which opinion be reserved with regard to injury No. 7 and 8 which were on the right forearm and right lower leg. However, no final report with regard to the said injuries was proved by the prosecution. 5. On the person of PW-1, the Informant, he found four injuries on his person, out of which the opinion of the injury No. 4 which he had sustained on his left parietal eminence, was reserved. With regard to this injury also, there is no further report, but on a close examination of three eye witnesses, I find that there is complete corroboration on material particulars as to how the occurrence started and the manner in which the two injured were assaulted. The Doctor (PW-2) also corroborated the prosecution case to the extent that he found both incised as well as lacerated injuries, thus, assuring the prosecution case. 6. In view of such cogent and reliable evidence, I am not inclined to interfere with the conviction of the Appellants. 7. The Appeal is dismissed but the sentence is modified to the period already undergone by them during trial. 8. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated, the 20th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI.