RANG LAL CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (Act II of 1974) (in short the Code) is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 18.11.1992 passed by Shri A. K. Verma, 6th Add). District & Sessions Judge, Arrah in S.T. No. 27 of 1987 convicting the appellant nos.3 and 5 under Sec.324 of the Indian Penal Code and the rest under Sections 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years each.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that on 16.6.1986 at about noon the informant Ramayan Choudhary (P.W.1) was at his house alongwith his mother Panmato Devi (P.W.5). In the meantime, the appellants named above variously armed with lathi and Bhalas entered into the house of P.W.1. Appellant no.1, Rang Lal Choudhary (since deceased) ordered other appellants to kill P.W.5. On this appellant, Ramakant choudhary gave a Bhala blow to him, appellant Tipan Choudhary assaulted him with lathi. When his mother Panmato Devi (P.W.5) came to save him, appellant Ranglal Choudhary (since deceased) ordered to assault her on which appellant, Radha Mohan Choudhary gave a Bhala blow to her. Appellants, Banga and Butu Choudhary also assaulted her with lathis. In the meantime, P.W.4, Ram Awadh Choudhary younger brother of the informant came there and appellant Tipan Choudhary also assaulted him with lathi. Ram Ishwar Choudhary another brother of P.W.1 came there and he was assaulted by the appellants. On hullah people collected there and appellants fled away. The Fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant (P. W.1) was recorded at 4 P.M. on 16.6.86 by A.S.I. of PPolice, S.S. Rajak at Udwantnagar Hospital. The police after completing the investigation submitted charge sheet. The case was committed to the court of session in which the appellants have been convicted in the manner indicated above.

(3.) THE parties have been heard at length on the various points raised in this appeal. So far as the merits of this case are concerned the I.O. has not been examined and the contradictions in the evidence of P.Ws. could not be taken. The Medical Officer who examined the informant has also not been examined. So far as the Fardbeyan (Ext.2) is concerned according to P.W.6 it was recorded by Sheo Shanker Rajak, A.S.I, of Police. He has also not been examined. The formal F.I. R. (Ext.3) has been proved by P.W.6 who was not present at the time when it was recorded. So far as P.W.1 is concerned it is clear that Exhibit 2 is not in his writing. So far as P.W.2 is concerned, according to F.I.R. he reached the alleged place of occurrence after the assault. P.W.3 has stated that when he reached there he saw the accused persons fleeing away. Even the trial court has disbelieved him. From all these it would appear that the prosecution case suffers from a number of defects and it could not have ended in the conviction of the appellants. On this ground alone the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal.