- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 16.1.2002 and order of sentence dated 18.1.2002 passed by Shri Mishri Lal Choudhary, Sessions Judge, Latehar in Sessions Trial No.234 of 1991 against the appellants, out of whom appellant no. 2 to 8 and 10 were found guilty U/S 307/149 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years. They were also found guilty u/s 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months. Appellant no. 2 and 9 were found guilty u/s 307/149 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years and further they were found guilty u/s 148 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case was started on the F.I.R. given by the informant (P.W.9), Bara Sibu Uraon is that on 21.10.1990 at about 10.00 a.m. at village Sisi, P.S. Latehar, District Latehar when they were cutting paddy in their field, all the accused persons came variously armed with lathi, tangi etc. and assaulted them causing injury to the informant and witnesses. The informant brought the injured persons to the police station where the F.I.R. was recorded. He has stated that the land belonged to them and they were growing crops in the land since long and when they were cutting the crops, the occurrence took place. He has stated that land dispute is going on between both the parties and case is pending. On the basis of the said F.I.R., police registered Latehar P.S. case no.111/1990 and after investigation submitted chargesheet u/s 147, 148, 149, 447, 323,324,325,307 of the I.P.C against the accused persons. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, therefore learned A.C.J.M. took cognizance of the case and committed the case to the court of Sessions. Finally the case was tried before the Sessions Judge, Latehar who after trial found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the genesis of the case since it will appear from the counter case, F.I.R. ,Ext.F proved by the defence that one of the member of the accused party namely Bartu Oraon died in the occurrence and injuries were caused to other members of the accused parties. But the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries. He has relied upon a decision reported in "A.I.R. 1976 SC page 2263  stating therein that non explanation of the injuries on the accused persons has made the prosecution case doubtful. He has further submitted that by filing documents with regard to the land, the appellant have proved that the land belong to them and the informant party were cutting the paddy, which was not even ripe, by force. Hence the conviction and sentence is bad and fit to be set aside.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the state has submitted that all the witnesses are injured and natural witnesses. The prosecution has proved by the evidence of Doctor, P.W.8 that eight persons were injured in the prosecution side. Their injury report is ext.1 to 1/7. He has further submitted that all the witnesses are natural witnesses and they have admitted that they are the accused in the counter case also and they also admitted that in the fight between both the parties, one of the accused member namely Bartu Uraon died due to the assault of the accused party. Thus, the prosecution has explained the death of Bartu Oraon and hence the conviction and sentence against the accused persons is well founded and requires no interference of this court.;