RAVI NATH VERMA, J. - (1.) THE sole appellant called in question the legality of the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 08/09.10.2002 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 296 of 1998 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.500/ - with default clause of further rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.) THE prosecution version which led to the trial of the appellant is as follows: - At the instance of the informant -SohnuGope (P.W.4)hisfardbeyan was recorded by Sub -Inspector of Raidih Police Station in injured condition in Government Hospital, Raidihwith the allegation that on 15.11.1997 while he was coming back to his village after seeing Bandai Mela at NaroToli and reached near GhatoDhar river at about 6.30 p.m., the appellant -SitaGope with three unknown persons caught him from back and took him towards GetuPani Hill and assaulted with slap, fist and stones and threw him in a cave of the said hill and further threw stones on him resulting in he sustained injuries in his mouth, right and left hand, chest, legs and on the whole body. His right hand got fractured. It is also alleged that as he became unconscious, on the next day in the morning his brother MahruGope (P.W.2) son MahabirGope (P.W.3) and wife Parvati Devi (P.W.1) came there and took him out from the cave and shifted him to Government Hospital at Raidih for treatment. The reason behind the assault as stated in the F.I.R. is land dispute.
(3.) ON the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, the aforesaid case was registered and after due investigation the police submitted charge -sheet against the present appellant -SitaGope only under Sections 341/323/325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.Thereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial. The charge against the appellant was framed only under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code but the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried as he was falsely implicated. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'the code') the defence is that the occurrence, as alleged, never took place and he had never assaulted the informant and pleads innocence. The prosecution, as it appears from the record, has examined altogether 13 witnesses. Among them, P.W.4 -Sohnu Gope is the informant, P.W.1 -Parvati Devi the wife of the informant, P.W.2 - Mahru Gope the brother, P.W.3 -Mahabir Gope son, the two wood sellerBhokla Ram and Chhatrapal Ram have been examined as P.W.5 and P.W.6 respectively. P.W.7 -Bhikhram Kharia, P.W.8 -Gyatri Devi, P.W.9 -Bhalbhadra Kharia, P.W.10 -Suraj NathGope, P.W.12 -Budhram Bhagat have been declared hostile. Investigating Officer is P.W.13 but the doctor, who had treated the informant, has not been examined by the prosecution. However, the injury report has been marked as Ext.2 as proved under Section 294 of the Code. The trial court after considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the injury report convicted the appellant as indicated above. Hence, this appeal. 3. The question that falls for determination is whether on facts and circumstances of the case as revealed from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the order of conviction and sentence passed by learned court below is justified? According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the court below erred in placing reliance on the evidence of the interested witnesses the wife, son and the brother though they are not even the eye witnesses to the occurrence. Further, assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel submitted that the court below also failed to take notice of the vital contradictions occurring in the evidence of the informant (P.W.4) and other witnesses. Thus, the conclusion of the learned court below is without any basis and the judgment is practically unreasoned and fit to be set aside.;