Om Prakash Sonar vs The State of Bihar

Anand Prasad Sinha, J.—The sole appellant has been found guilty for the offence punish-able u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous �mprisonmeat for ten years. The prosecution case, briefly stated, is that on 11.1.1974 at about 8.30 A.M. Jagarnath Prasad Kesari (P.W. 2), who is the informant and injured was going to the railway station on a rickshaw along with his associate Gopal Prasad Gupta (P.W. 4). Suddenly the appellant came with a dagger and inflicted a dagger blow on the neck. Since the rickshaw was in motion, the appellant could not succeed in giving such blow which may have caused death.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that there is no independent witness in this case and the Doctor has not been examined.

In the facts and circurnstances of the case, absence of independent witness cannot be said to be a ground to disbelieve the prosecution case. The evidence of the injured is sufficient to fasten the guilt upon the appellant. Non-examination of the Doctor is of no gain to the defence. It is because if the statement that the appellant had inflicted dagger injury in the neck is accepted without going ''into the nature of injury, that is enough to find the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

On perusal of the entire evidence, absolutely no occasion for interference on the question of conviction has been made out. However, I am inclined to consider on the question of sentence. It is because the oceurrence took place in the year 1974, about 12 years back. The session trial itself consumed 8 years because that had been concluded on 22.10.1982. This period consumed by the Session tml is, in my opinion, exceedingly unreasonable and the appellant must have been sufficiently punished in the process of trial itself. Moreover, the appellant had to undergo all the rigors of criminal proseculion for about 12 years, as the appeal is going to be disposed of today. Tile appellant has definitely lived in jail for three years which is calculated from the date of the judgment of the session trial and till up-to-date as he has not been granted bail by the High Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, even a period of three years'' imprisonment is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby altered and reduced 10 the period of impr�sonment already undergone by him. With the above modification in sentence, this appeal is dismissed. Let the appellant be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not required in any other case.