- (1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by the State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) against the order of acquittal dated 19.10.1993 passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad by which the sole respondent Rijhu Mahto was acquitted of the charge under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 291 of 1989.
(2.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the State on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the consistent evidence of witnesses suggesting that the respondent has assaulted the informant with 'farsa ' resulting in injury on his neck. It is further asserted that the trial Court has acquitted the respondent from charge in absence of the investigating officer and the doctor discarding the consistent oral evidence. Mr. T.N.Verma, learned A.P.P. for the State, submitted that the trial Court should have considered the oral evidence and directed for production of the doctor and the investigating officer in support of the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the learned trial Court has wrongly considered that respondent Rijhu Mahto was tied by the prosecution party and handed over to police but the same has not been brought on record and highlighted the absence of doctor treating the informant. Therefore, the order of acquittal be set aside. No one appears on behalf of the respondent in spite of valid service of notice.
(3.) I have gone through the materials on record along with the impugned judgment. The learned trial Court has considered the absence of investigating officer and some minor contradictions in the statements of PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 along with PW 4 in this case. It further appears that the injury reports, though not proved available on record of Rijhu Mahto, the respondent, mentions that on 8.3.1988 he was examined by medical officer of Sub - Jail, Chas, but the injury report of the informant Sohan Mahto has not been brought on record. It further appears that he was not cross - examined by the defence. I further find that PW 3 admittedly brother of the informant has not seen the occurrence and he admitted in cross -examination that PW 4 has not disclosed who has assaulted him. PW 1 has admitted that there was dispute regarding the land between the informant and the respondent and a counter case was pending against him as well as PW 4.;