MAHENDRA SAHANI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-2011-4-127
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on April 04,2011

Mahendra Sahani Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

ANJANA PRAKASH, J. - (1.)THE appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Section 307/149, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I for six years and he is also sentenced to R.I. for 3 years respectively. Whereas the rest of the appellants have been convicted under Section 307/149 and sentenced to R.I. for one year. In addition appellant No. 3 has been convicted under Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to R.I. for one year by a judgment dated 28.9.1994 by 3rd Additional sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hazipur in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 1993.
(2.)THE case of the prosecution is that on 16.9.1992 suddenly all the accused persons came to the house of the informant and variously assaulted P.W. 4 P.W. 7 and P.W 9. The specific case of the prosecution is that appellant No. 1 fired on stomach of injured due to which she fell down and became un -conscious. The doctor P.W. 5 who examined the injured and conducted autopsy of the new born child stated in cross examination that he did not find pellet injury on the person of the delivered child who died within 30 minutes of the delivery and therefore, the appellant No.1 was acquitted of the charge under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3.)IN the present case P.W. 7 is the informant whereas P.W 4, P.W. 9 are the injured, eye witnesses P.W. 1 P.W. 2 P.W 3 P.W 5 are corroborated witnesses whereas P.W 6 the formal and P.W 8 and 10 are the doctors who examined the injured P.W. 11 has been tendered and P.W 12 is the formal in nature. P.W. 13 is Investigating Officer of the case. The defense also examined 1 witness in support of the fact that there was a counter case with regard to the same occurrence as Ext. (B).
Ongoing through the evidence of 3 material witnesses I find that there is a total denial that the accused had also been injured in the same transaction which makes the prosecution case untrustworthy since evidently the prosecution has not brought the true case before the Court. Further the Doctor P.W 8 materially contradicted the prosecution case on very vital fact.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.