- (1.) BY Court: Both these appeals have been preferred against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 21.2.2012 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge II, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 107 of 1997 (T.R. No. 133 of 2011), whereby and whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has acquitted sole appellant Kapildeo Yadav from the charges punishable under sections 307/324 IPC and discharged him from liabilities of the bail bond. Prosecution case, in short, as appearing from the fard beyan of Arun Kumar Yadav (appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 585 of 2012) is that on 11.9.1996 at about 7.30 p.m. while the informant had been to the house of Nagina Yadav in order to provide tuition to the children of Nagina Yadav, accused Kapildeo Yadav who happens to be younger brother of Nagina Yadav, inflicted farsa blow on the head of the informant causing him bleeding injuries. The informant was removed to Primary Health Centre (PHC) Mehrama, where his fard beyan was recorded on 12.9.1996 at about 9.00 hours.
(2.) ON the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant Mehrama PS Case No. 103 of 1996 dated 12.9.1996 under sections 307/324 IPC against the accused Kapildeo Yadav was registered. The accused remained absconding, but the police after investigation submitted charge sheet under sections 324/307 of the Indian Penal Code and, accordingly, cognizance was taken. After the case was committed to the court of sessions, it was registered as Sessions Case No. 4 of 2001. Charges were framed against the accused/respondent on 20.5.2002 and he was put on trial under section 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code. Prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses to substantiate the charges. Fulo Devi (PW 1), Jitendra Yadav (PW 2); Girisih Yadav (PW 3) are eye witnesses and they have supported the prosecution case as made out by the informant. They have deposed that on the date of incident while the informant Arun Yadav had been to their house to give tuition, accused Kapildeo Yadav suddenly appeared and caused injuries to the informant by means of farsa on his head. Sachidanand Yadav (PW 4), Rajendra Yadav (PW 5) and Srikant Yadav (PW 6) are the witnesses who had reached to the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. They had seen the injured and learnt about the incident from the informant and other witnesses.
(3.) LEARNED trial court after considering the materials available on record has recorded order of acquittal on the ground that the informant/injured Arun Kumar Yadav was not examined, nor the fard beyan has been improved. Neither the investigating officer, nor the doctor was examined. In absence of these important witnesses, evidences of six prosecution witnesses are of no use.;