High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 04 PAT CK 0082

Chiranjib Kumar Jha @ Chiranjib Jha, Sushil Kuamar Jha @ Sushil Jha and Bhup Narain Jha @ Bhupan Jha vs The State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 1 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjana Prakash, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 253 of 1994

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 309 words

Anjana Prakash, J.—The Appellants No. 2 and 3 have been convicted u/s 147 IPC and order to be released on probation on execution of bail bond of Rs. 2,000/- each whereas the Appellant No. 1 has been convicted under Sections 324 and 148 IPC and sentence to RI for three years and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for one year by judgment dated 30.06.1994 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S. Tr. No. 77 of 1986/88 of 1988.

2.

The prosecution case is that an altercation took place between the parties on account of plucking of bamboo leaves in course of which the injured was variously assaulted. Initially the Appellants were charged u/s 307 IPC but the conviction was converted as mentioned aforesaid.

3.

The prosecution examined eleven witnesses during trial out of which P.W. 7 has been declared hostile and the rest of the witnesses belong to the same family.

It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that admittedly occurrence took place on the spur of the moment without any pre-meditation and the injury reports are doubtful since they were neither referred by the police nor the Government Doctor. The further submission is that only interested witnesses have been examined even though the occurrence is said to have taken place in full public view. It also appears that there is a counter-version of the occurrence and the witnesses had failed to explain the injuries on the accused and it appears there was a free fight between the parties.

4.

In view of discussion made above, this appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 30.06.1994 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sitamarhi in S. Tr. No. 77 of 1986/88 of 1988 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.

5.

The appeal stands allowed.