The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence under section 304 part II of the IPC.

ORDER :

Navneet Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.11.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.11.2003 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-6, Giridih in Sessions Case No. 23 of 1989 whereby and whereunder the appellant Huro Yadav has been convicted under section 304 part II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 6 years.

Prosecution Story

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 25.08.1988 at 9 P.M., the informant Dasrath Yadav P.W.10 was at his house with his family members. The father of Dasrath Yadav, started abusing and on hearing the noise, accused persons came to that place with lathi. It is alleged that this appellant Huro Yadav assaulted Bhattu Yadav, by lathi and caused injury on his head. It is further alleged that when the informant Dasrath Yadav tried to save his father other accused persons also came with lathi and assaulted Dasrath Yadav. It is further alleged that due to the injury caused by lathi on the head, Bhattu Yadav died after few days at Ranchi Hospital during the course of treatment.

3. After investigation charge sheet was submitted against the appellant Huro Yadav, Balo Yadav, Govind Yadav and Arjun Yadav under sections 323, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial.

4. That the learned trial court framed charge under sections 304/34 of IPC against the appellant Huro Yadav and others namely Balo Yadav Govind Yadav and Arjun Yadav. The accused persons were also charged under section 323 of IPC for causing hurt to Dasrath Yadav, Informant.

5. The learned trial court after framing the charges against the appellant conducted the trial and after conclusion of the trial the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is under challenge.

6. Heard Mr. Arjun N. Dev, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, learned A.P.P. for the State.

Argument on behalf of the appellants:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not a case where the FIR has been directly instituted u/s 302 IPC rather at the first instance a Sanha was instituted by the son P.W.10 of the deceased. It has also been submitted that it is an admitted case of the prosecution that a dispute between the father and the son was going on. This sole appellant Huro Yadav along with the other co-accused persons (who have been acquitted by the trial court) were living in the same premises and it is stated that the appellant along with the other accused persons assaulted the deceased, father of the informant P.W.10, and later on he succumbed to the injuries and it is contended on behalf of the appellant that it is a case of simple injury and not the case under section 304 part II IPC because there had never been either intention or knowledge to the appellant that due to the injury death would be caused.

8. It has further been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W. 1- Bhikhani Devi, wife of the deceased, in para 4 stated that the deceased was a habitual drunker and he used to drink frequently and for this cause there had been a dispute between the informant-son and the father and on that day the dispute has been going on between the informant and the deceased for the same reason of consumption of liquor and further she categorically stated that she did not know as to by whose assault her husband sustained head injuries.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as P.W. 1 has stated that all the accused persons had assaulted the deceased and the accused appellant is one of them who has been convicted and all the rest of the accused persons have been acquitted and, therefore, there is inconsistency in the finding of the learned court below by wrongly appreciating the evidences available on record. This accused-appellant has been tried along with the co-accused persons Balo Yadav