- (1.) THESE two appellants were tried jointly for the charges under Sections 307, 324, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and thereafter by judgment dated 25.3.1991 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Santhal Parganas at Dumka in Sessions Case No. 440 of 1984 the appellant No. 1, Rawindra Thakur was convicted for the offences under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sen - -tenced to undergo RI for one year. The appellant No. 2 was convicted for the offences under Sections 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to under go RI for one year under Section 323 and one year further RI for the offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. However both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 6.3.1983 at about 3.30 p.m. fardheyan of Jagat Kishore Thakur (PW 1) was recorded wherein it was alleged that while he was engaged in cutting hair in Manoj Medical Hall, at that time his co villager Pradeep Kumar Singh came and informed that his mother Munia Devi and sister Manju Devi were being beaten by his own uncle Kanak Lai Thakur and his son -in -law Rawindra Thakur. On this information the informant rushed to his house and found his -mother and his sister in injured condition. The informant started making enquiry from his mother regarding the cause of the occurrence then it is said that in the mean time the appellant Kanak Lai Thakur and his son -in -law Rawindra Thakur arrived there armed with lathi and farsa. Kanak Lai Thakur did not assault him but Rawindra Thakur assaulted, him with farsa on his head with an intention to kill him but fortunately it did not cause any severe injury over his head. It is said that on his alarm his brother Girdhari Thakur (PW 4) reached there to save him but he was also assaulted by Rawindra Thakur receiving injury on his finger. The further case of the prosecution is that the informant 'ssister Manju Devi and his mother Munia Devi were assaulted by means of lathi by Kanak lal Thakur. It is said that they would have been severally assaulted if Dr. Mihir Sil (not examined) would not have saved them. It is said that on the alarm of the informant Mihir Sil and Pradeep Kumar Singh (both not examined) and Jay Prakash Choudhary (PW 8, declared hostile) arrived at the place of occurrence and saved all the four injured. The defence case is of false implication and total denial of the occurrence. Altogether 8 prosecution witnesses were examined to prove the charges. PW 1 is the informant Jagat Kishore Thakur, PW 2 is the Investigating Officer, and PW 3 is the doctor who medically examined all the four injured i.e. PW 1, PW 4 his brother Girdhari Thakur and the mother and sister of the informant, PW 5 is the mother, Manju Devi the sister of the informant has not been examined. PW 6 is Nitu Devi, who is the neighbour of the Informant, PW 7 is Radha Thakur, the husband of PW 6, who has been tendered and PW 8 Js Jay Prakash Chaudhary an eye -witness to the occurrence, who has been declared hostile.
(3.) AS it appears from the evidence on record that the case of the prosecution is that the appellant No. 1 Rawindra Thakur assaulted the informant Jagat Kishore Thakur and Girdhari Thakur PW 4 by means of farsa, whereas it is said that the appellant No. 2 Kanak Lal Thakur assaulted the mother of the informant Munia Devi PW 5 and informants 'ssister Manju Devy by means of lathi From the injury report of Munia Devi it appears that she received grievous injury but the said injury has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution therefore if appears that material witness has been withheld by the prosecution.;