Conviction requires concrete evidence; mere general allegations are insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict under Sections 304 and 323 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard Mrs. Vandana Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State.

2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging his judgment of conviction dated 24.06.2006 and order of sentence dated 26.06.2006 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 220 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 323 and 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C. and further to undergo imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that informant Pradeep Rout and accused Sikandar Raut (appellant no. 1) used to plough their field by sharing the ox of each other. It is alleged that on 06.07.1997, Sikandar Raut had ploughed his filed with the ox in the morning. Hence, the informant took the ox of Sikankar Raut in the evening for ploughing and sowing maize crop. It is further alleged that when the informant brought his ox from cattle shed to his field, meanwhile, Arjun Raut (appellant no. 2) objected and Sikandar Raut separated his ox from ploughing on the pretext that time is over. It is further alleged that when the informant returned to his home then Sikandar Raut came and started abusing him and Arjun Raut also came there and assaulted informant on his head by gadasa. Accused Abhikant Raut assaulted on the head of the informant by farsa. Sikandar Rout also started assaulting indiscriminately with his lathi on both arms of informant. The informant raised alarm then his father Tiruti Raut (since deceased) came, who was also assaulted by Arjun Raut (appellant no. 1) and Sikandar Raut (appellant no. 2).

4. On the basis of above information, FIR being Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 99 of 1997 dated 06.07.1997 was registered for the offence under Sections 34 1, 323, 337, 324, 504/34 of the I.P.C. Later on, offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. was added due to death of Tiruti Raut in the said occurrence.

5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet under Sections 34 1, 323, 337, 324, 504, 307 and 302/34 of the I.P.C. After submission of charge sheet, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where the charges were framed under Sections 307 /34 and 302/34 of the I.P.C., to which the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

Exhibit-1 : Signature of Birendra Raut on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit-1/1 : Signature of informant on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit-1/2 : Signature of Birendra Raut on the inquest report.

Exhibit-2 : Injury report of deceased.

Exhibit-2/1 : Injury report of deceased.

Exhibit-2/2 : Injury report of informant.

Exhibit-3 : C.C. of post-mortem report of deceased.

Exhibit-4 : Fardbeyan of deceased.

Exhibit-5 : Endorsement on the fardbeyan.

Exhibit-6 : Formal F.I.R.

8. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent persons and have committed no offence at all. They have been falsely implicated in this case.

However, two documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

Exhibit-A : Certified copy of F.I.R. of Saraiyahat P.S. Case No. 98/97.

Exhibit-B : Charg