Narendra Kuwar and Others vs State of Bihar

Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.—The appellants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted u/s 307, IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years whereas appellant No. 4 has been convicted u/s 323, IPC and sentenced to RI for one year by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge. Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 22.1989 by a judgment dated 28.11.1997.

The case of the prosecution according to PW1, Ramnaresh Kuwar is that on 4.10.1987 some exchange of hot words took place between the parties Narendra Kuwar and Dhamidhar Kuwar for construction of a passage. At that time the informant had gone to Diyara and when he returned had gone to Diyara and when he returned he obstructed Narendra Kuwar to do so on account of which he assaulted on the head of the informant with the butt of the pistol whereas Pravin Kumar assaulted him with a brick and Chandramani Kuwar assaulted with a bhala which hit on the right hand of the informant and Ram Chander Choudhary assaulted Dhamidhar Kuwar by means of lathi.

The defence pleaded that in fact on 4.10.1987 at about 8 a.m. the accused Narendra Kuwar was removing bricks from his house which was objected by Dharindhar Kuwar but the matter subsided after exchange of hot words. Later the informant, Ram Naresh Kuwar. Dilip Kuwar and Kamla Kishore Kuwar all armed with country-made pistol arrived at the place of occurrence and the informant is said to have fired which hit on the head of Narendra Kuwar for which incident Bachwara P.S. Case No. 92/87 is instituted against the informant and others.

During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW5. Doctor is said to have examined the injured. Ram Naresh Kuwar, PW1 who is the informant alongwith Dhamidhar Kuwar PW4.

From the evidence of PW5, one finds that PW4 had sustained four injuries on his person all of which are simple in nature. Similarly, on the person of informant three injuries were found which also were simple in nature. These two important witnesses did not explain the counter version which could not be denied in the facts of the case since specific evidence had been led by the defence in this regard and defence witness No. 1 was also examined as well as other reliable documents were brought on record. The denial of the counter version raises a reasonable suspicion in the mind of the Court that in fact the correct version was suppressed by the prosecution.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 28.11.1997 passed by the Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge. Begusarai in Sessions Case No. 22/1989 is, hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges and discharged of the liability of their bail bonds.