SK. KAMRULLAH @ SK. KAMRULL, SON OF RAMJAN AND ORS. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILLAGE BANJARAHA, P.S. KURANWA, CHAINPUR, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that he has instruction to state before this Court that Sk. Kamrullah, Son of Ramjan, Sk. Manjoor, Son of Sk. Abdul Rahman, Sk. Shah Mohammad, Son of Abdul Mazid and Sk. Hakim, Son of Tasduk Hussail have died during pendency of this appeal. The Trial Court is directed to ascertain this fact. In case the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that these appellants have died, the appeal against them would abate, if not, they will be covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in this appeal. All the appellants have found guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. They have also been found guilty under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that Md. Jamshed was going to work at Dhaka Bazar by bicycle when he was surrounded by 19 named accused persons near the hut of Jamil Akhtar. It is alleged that Sk. Manzoor (who is now dead) inflicted a Farsa blow on the head of the informant whereas all the other 18 accused persons assaulted him on his hands, legs and other parts of the body. It is alleged that Sk. Latif took away the H.M.T. watch belonging to the informant. The motive for the occurrence disclosed in the First Information Report is that Sk. Serazul and Sk. Hafiz are accused in a case of dacoity in which Md. Mustafa, P.W. 8, the brother of the informant has given evidence against them. Being aggrieved by this fact the said occurrence is said to have taken place.

(3.) COUNSEL appearing on behalf of the informant on the other hand submits that three persons were injured out of which the informant was grievously injured as he had fractured both his hands as a result of the injuries inflicted on him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has been able to show by leading evidence in Court that the manner of occurrence as made out in the First Information Report is the correct version of the case.