The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the offenses punishable under sections 341 and 324 of the IPC based on witness testimonies and the nature of injuries sustained.

ORDER :

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.04.2004 passed by the learned 4th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Court No. 1, Godda in Sessions Case No. 36 of 2003 whereby the three appellants have been acquitted for the offence punishable u/s 307 of IPC and convicted for the offence punishable u/s 341/324 of IPC and it was further ordered to undergo S.I. for one month for the offence u/s 341 of IPC and Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable u/s 324 of IPC and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. It appears from the record that during the pendency of this appeal two appellants appellant no. 1 namely Ganpat Harizan and the appellant no. 2 Sonu Harizan passed away and vide order dated 20.11.2021, the appeal in hand got abated with respect to both the deceased appellants and as such with respect to only the surviving appellant Katki Harizan, the appeal is heard and disposed of.

2. The prosecution story arose in the wake of fardbeyan of one Puran Harijan- P.W. 2, whose statement was recorded by Godda Police namely S. Sharma, S.I., on 20.07.1986 at 13.00 hours at P.S. which is as under:

The informant stated that on 20.07.1986 (Sunday) his co-villagers including this appellant Katki Harizan and other accused persons were constructing the house by laying the foundation work upon which this informant interfered and claimed the land upon which the construction work was going on, the dispute arose and co-accused Ganpat Harizan ordered to kill the informant. Thereupon, the other accused persons assaulted by the weapons and this appellant Katki Harizan is also alleged to have assaulted by sabal (a heavy iron rod) upon the back of the informant by which he fell down and sustained injuries and the other accused-appellants had also assaulted the informant including the deceased appellant Ganpat Harizan, Sonu Harizan and Shyam Sunder Harizan by Bhala, Khanti and lathi respectively. It has further been disclosed in the fardbeyan that several co-villagers reached there on raising hulla including the Subhash Harizan, Sahdeo Harizan, Sanichar Harizan P.W. 1 and saw the occurrence.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan recorded by the Godda police, a formal FIR was instituted vide Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 116 of 1986 corresponding to G.R. No. 452 of 1986 registered u/s 324, 341, 323, 307 of the IPC against the four accused persons including this appellant Katki Harizan as one of them and the investigation of the case commenced and after completion of the investigation the charge sheet was submitted. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed against three accused persons including this appellant Katki Harizan, as one of them, for the offence punishable u/s 341/324/307/34 of IPC as one of the co-accused died during the pending of the trial.

4. The learned court below after concluding the trial had found the three accused persons guilty for the offence punishable u/s 341/324 of IPC and accordingly, they were convicted and sentenced by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge. It has further been pointed out that out of three appellants, two appellants appellant nos. 1 & 2 had died during the pending of the appeal and the appeal got abated with respect to these appellants.

5. Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments on behalf of the appellant

6. Assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the learned defense counsel submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as well as on the fact that the I.O. of this case has not been examined and nonexamination of the I.O. caused serious prejudice to the accused-appellant as in the cross examination, the attention of the witnesses had been drawn with their earlier statement,