RAJENDRA LAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants suffered conviction under Sections 427, 353 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer imprisonment for a term of one year on each count. They were also convicted under Section 330 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of five years.

(2.) THE police case was registered at Roh Police Station on behest of Parmeshwar Mahto (P.W. 1) alleging that on 1st November, 1981, while he along with other officials of Public Health Engineering Department was returning after repair of machine, to Nawadah on a tractor, they were intercepted by the appellants who dealt blows on them and also pelted brick -bats and stones. Accusation about damaging the tractor was also attributed to them. After the police was set in Shyam Deo Paswan Versus State Of Bihar motion, investigation commenced during which police recorded statement of witnesses, visited place of occurrence, secured injury report from the doctor and on conclusion of investigation, laid chargesheet before the court. In the eventual trial that commenced against the appellants, the State examined altogether seven witnesses including the Doctor. The defence pleaded by the appellants was of innocence. However, the trial court on appreciation of evidence, while negativing contentions raised at bar on behalf of the appellants, recorded verdict of guilt and sentenced them in the manner stated above which is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) EVIDENCES of the witnesses were most cryptic in the sense that they were simply narrating before the court about victims sustaining injuries, while returning after repair of the machine, without there being any implicit evidence as to whether they were further going to attend their duty and hence, in that view of the matter, conviction of the appellants on that count did not sound well. In the same fashion it would appear that evidence of witnesses were not implicit as to who had sustained injuries on their persons either by fists and slaps or pelting of stones. Parmeshwar Mahto though claimed to have identified six of them, who intercepted them, made candid admission that he could not know about the overt act committed by individual appellant, and also that who sustained injuries at the hands of an individual appellant. Evidence of N.C. Gupta, P.W. 2, was not better than of Parmeshwar Mahto, P.W. 1, simply claimed to identify four persons, without making any attribution against them. He did not know as to whether any of the appellants dealt blows on him. Attention of this witness was also drawn by the State to impeach his credibility. Sohan Singh, P.W. 3 claims to have identified only Rajendra Lal. He would make candid admission that he did disclose the names of the assailants even to the police. Awadhesh Kumar Jha, P.W. 4, claimed to have identified only Janardan Sah.