High CourtsSingle Bench

Devendra Prasad Chaurasia and Others vs State of Bihar

Patna High Court · Decided on 8 April 2011 · Citation: (2011) 3 Crimes 695

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anjana Prakash, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Arms Act, 1959 — Section 27 · Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Section 307, 323
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 397 of 1994
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 318 words

Anjana Prakash, J.—Heard.

2.

The Appellants have been convicted by a Judgment dated 7.12.1994 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1986 by which the Appellants have been convicted u/s 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month and also a fine of 1,000/- in default of which one month further rigorous imprisonment.

3.

The case of the prosecution is that an altercation erupted between the parties over drainage on account of which Appellant No. 2 being enraged took out his country made pistol and fired at the Informant which caused injury. The Appellant No. 1 is said to have thrown brick bats which caused injury on the wrist of one Ganga Devi. Initially the case was instituted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act but the Appellants were acquitted of the charges and convicted as mentioned above. The prosecution examined four witnesses out of seven charge sheet witnesses out of whom PW-3 is the Informant whereas PWs-2 and 1 are the injured witnesses whereas PW-4 is the formal. Neither the Doctor nor the Investigating Officer has been examined by the prosecution. So, in effect the Court is left with only the oral evidence of assault upon the injured. Considering the analysis of the evidence, it appears that undisputedly, the three injured belonged to the same family and not a single independent witness has been produced on behalf of the prosecution. The story of assault also remained uncorroborated on account of non-examination of the Doctor. Under the circumstances, the Appeal is allowed giving benefit of doubt to the Appellants. The order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1986 by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda, is hereby set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.