STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RUKMINI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 31st July, 1986 passed by Sri Mohan Prasad, the then Judicial Magistrate, IInd Class, Patna, in G.R. No. 4684 of 1983, T.R. No. 30 of 1986 arising out of Phulwari P.S. Case No. 398 of 1983, whereby the learned Magistrate while convicting three of the accused, has acquitted three respondents herein, the State has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) According to the prosecution case at about 7 a.m. on 11-11-1983 the informant Parmeshwar Choudhary was sleeping at his darwaza when stepbrother Baleshwar Choudhary with whom dispute and differences had cropped up over landed property and wherein the Mukhia following Panchayati had given his rulings which was not accepted by Baleshwar, arrived armed with Chhura. It is said that Baleshwar proposed to the informant to get the land measured once more by the Amin but when the informant did not agree to the proposal since it was the day of Chhat festival and agreed to get the measurement done later which did not appeal to Baleshwar who allegedly dealt two chhura blows on the informant the first one caused injury on the left eyebrow and the second causing injury to the small finger of the left foot. The informant is said to have raised cries of alarm attracted whereby Dinesh Choudhary armed with lathi came over and dealt a lathi blow on the hip of the informant and the result whereof he started wreathing in pain. It is said that when the informant's wife Uma Devi came to his rescue Baleshwar's wife Rukmini Devi caught hold of her hair and assaulted her and Ramesh Choudhary arrived armed with lathi and dealt a lathi blow on her causing injury to her elbow joint of the left hand and she fell to the ground seeing which the informant's younger son rushed towards the village calling for help when he was apprehended on the way by Harish Chandra Choudhary along with Kapil Thakur who assaulted the informant's son with slaps and fist. It is said that co-villagers including Madanlal and Baleshwar Rai arrived and intervened thereby saving the informant and his family members.

(3.) At the trial the prosecution sought to examine as many as 5 witnesses including the I.O. and the doctor and also adduced certain documents in support of the prosecution case.