- (1.) Both these Criminal Appeals have been preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 17.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 135 of 1996 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offences punishable under sections 326/452/323 IPC and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of rupees ten thousand each and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for one year under section 326 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for four years and fine of rupees one thousand each and in default, simple imprisonment for two months under section 452 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 323 IPC.The appellant namely Angrej Das has also been held guilty under section 307 IPC, apart from sections 326/452/323 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of rupees twenty thousand and in default of payment, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two years and 60 percent of the fine, if deposited, shall be given to the informant.
(2.) THE prosecution case, as emerges from the fard beyan of the informant Surendra Das PW7 is that on 15.6.1995 after taking his meal, he was sleeping in his house. During the night, appellant Angrej Das with his three associates committed house trespass and they all caused injuries to the informant with an intention to kill him. The informant sustained multiple injuries on his person and he was admitted to Hospital for his treatment where his fard beyan was recorded on 16.6.1995 on the basis of which Jasidih P.S. Case No. 91 of 1995 was registered under sections 452/341/324/307/504/34 IPC and investigation proceeded. During investigation, names of other appellants came in light and all of them were charge sheeted to face trial for the offences punishable under sections 452/307/326/323/34 IPC. The appellants stood charged under sections 452/307/326/323/34 whereas the appellant Angrej Das has further been charged under section 307 IPC. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded and the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses to substantiate the charges. The appellants have also examined two defence witnesses in support of their defence. The informant has been examined as PW7 and he has supported the prosecution case as made out in the fard beyan. He has further disclosed names of all the accused /appellants including the name of Angrej Das, (appellant in Cr. Appeal No.126/2003 ) in his deposition. Binod Das PW3, Pradeep Kumar Das PW6 are brothers of the informant PW7 and they have corroborated the evidence adduced by the informant. They have also deposed that Surendra Das informant was assaulted by the accused appellants with a sharp cutting weapon, while he was sleeping in his house. Dhano Devi PW1 is the mother of the informant and she has stated that in the midnight after hearing the alarm raised by her son Surendra Das, she went there and found him injured. Her son had disclosed the name of Angrej Das (appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 126/2003) as assailant. Sanichar Das PW2 and Budhan Das PW5 who are father and the uncle of the informant are hearsay witnesses, and they had attended the injured at the hospital. Nakul Das PW4 has been tendered. Dr. D.K.Pathak PW8 had examined the injured on 16.6.1995 and had found altogether seven sharp cut injuries on the person of the informant PW7. Some injuries were grievous in nature and caused within six hours. The injury report has been proved as Ext. 2.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal No. 112 of 2003 has submitted that names of these appellants did not find mention in the fard beyan, though all of them were known to the informant from before. Furthermore, Binod Das PW3, is the attesting witness to the fard beyan and he has disclosed names of these appellants, even then the fard beyan did not bear their names. It is further contended that all the material witnesses are close relatives of the informant and no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. Exaggeration and contradictions are apparent in their statements and therefore non examination of the investigating officer is fatal to the prosecution with regard to these appellants. The version of the informant PW7 could not be believed, because in his deposition, he has named these appellants with specific allegation, but these facts did not find mention in the fard beyan and therefore liable to be excluded from any consideration.;