The prosecution must prove intent to cause death in assault cases; insufficient evidence led to acquittal.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-12-2025 Heard Mr. Shashank Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. From perusal of record, it appears that appellant nos. 1 and 2 were on bail in terms of order dated 23.04.2004 whereas appellant no. 3 was granted bail in terms of order dated 25.06.2004 as passed by one of the learned coordinate Bench of this Court.

3. This memo of appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellants under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short the, ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 162 of 1993 by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Civil Court, Bettiah, whereby and whereunder the appellant namely, Ram Nath Choudhary has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years for the offfence under section 307 of the I.P.C. and further sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month under section 341 of the I.P.C., whereas appellant namely, Prayag Choudhary and Lal Babu Choudhary are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 323 of the I.P.C. and one month simple imprisonment under section 341 of the I.P.C. and directed that sentences of each appellant shall run concurrently.

4. The brief facts of the case is that while the informant on 31.10.1992, was scrapping grass of Chhath Ghat of the village for celebrating Chhath Puja, then, all the accused persons including appellants arrived there and stopped him to do the same. When the informant protested, altercation took place between both sides. It is alleged that co-accused Ram Preet Choudhary ordered the other accused persons to kill the informant, thereafter, appellant namely, Ram Nath Choudhary gave ‘Farsa’ blow on the head of the informant causing head injury. When the brother of informant came to rescue him, he was also assaulted by the appellant by means of ‘Farsa’ on his head, and when he fell down, accused persons started assaulting him with lathi. Thereafter, villagers reached there and taken them to the hospital for treatment.

5. On the basis of aforesaid statement of the informant, Nautan P.S. Case No. 273 of 1992 was registered for the offences punishable under section 341, 323, 324, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code .

6. After conclusion of investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons under section 323, 324, 341, 307/34 of the I.P.C. and, thereafter, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences and committed the case to the court of sessions for its trial and disposal.

7. Accused Ram Preet Choudhary died during pendency of this case, hence, proceeding against him was dropped. Appellant no. 1 and 2 were charged under section 323 and 341 of the I.P.C. whereas appellant no. 3 was charged under section 341 and 307 of the I.P.C. Charges were explained to these accused/appellants to which they plead not guilty and claimed to be tried.

8. To establish its case before the learned trial court, the prosecution altogether examined total of nine (9)

prosecution witnesses and they are:

PW-1 Satya Narain Mahto;

PW-2 Gajadhar Mahto;

PW-3 Dr. S.P. Verma;

PW-4 Kedar Choudhary;

PW-5 Jai Choudhary; PW-6 Ramdeo Mahto;

PW-7 Surendra Mallah;

PW-8 Baijnath Choudhary and PW-9 Kapildeo Choudhary (the informant).

9. Chandeshwar Choudhary was examined as DW-1 and filed C.C. of order dated 01.11.93 marked as Exhibit ‘A’ and rest of the documents were marked as Exhibit ‘B’

10. After examination of prosecution witnesses and by taking note of evidence as surfaced during t