BHUNA SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1979-10-11
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on October 17,1979

BHUNA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

S.Shamsul Hasan, J. - (1.)The solitary appellant in this case has been convicted under Sec. 304, Part 2 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years. Eleven persons were tried in this case for offences under Secs. 302/149 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Some were also charged under Secs. 323, 324 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Except Bhuna Singh the appellant, the rest have all been acquitted. Appellant Bhuna Singh has also been held not guilty under Secs. 302/149 and 326/149 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.)The prosecution case on the basis of the first information report lodged on 15-10-1969 at 9 p.m. by Umrao Yadav P.W. 4 is to the effect that on that date at 4 p.m. the cattle of the appellant and one Jadubansi Singh were found grazing in the land of the informant and his brother Radhey Yadav. The informant and Radhey Yadav started driving the cattle to the pound. The appellant and other accused went to the village and after arming themselves came to the place of occurrence and on the order of Jadubansi Singh, the appellant struck Radhey Yadav in the Panjari with bhala. On this hulla was raised and the people who were working at the nearby field arrived at the place of occurrence. Parmeshwar Yadav was also assaulted.
(3.)The defence version of the occurrence based in Exhibit. A is to the effect that no occurrence had taken place as alleged by the prosecution. It is further stated that the prosecution party were the aggressors and some of the accused persons had seize 5. the catde of the prosecution party which were grazing in the field of Kamalmukhi Singh and attempt to rescue the cattle of the prosecution party was forcibly made and in course of which the prosecution party inflicted grievous injury on four persons, one of whom was an accused in this case also. Their further defence as the trial was that they had a right of private defence as soon as they had apprehended danger to their lives, and the injuries were inflicted in their defence.


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