Evidence inconsistency and lack of direct causation led to partial acquittal of the appellants, emphasizing rigorous scrutiny in criminal convictions.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date: 02-05-2017

1. Cr. Appeal no. 200 of 2015 wherein, Shital Das Yadav happens to be the sole appellant and Cr. Appeal no. 203 of 2015 wherein, Tunni Beldar and Sudhir Beldar happen to be the appellants have been filed against the common judgment of conviction dated 07.04.2015 and sentence dated 10.04.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (prevention of Atrocities) Act, Nawada in connection with Special (SC/ST) case no. 06 of 2003 convicting all the appellants for an offence punishable under Sections 323 /34, 341/34, 316/34 of Indian Penal Code and each one has been directed to under rigorous imprisonment for six months, simple imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for five years as well as fine appertaining to Rs. 10,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months respectively under each distinct head as indicated above on account thereof, have been heard together and are being decided by the common judgment.

2. Succinctly, the prosecution case, as is evident from the fardbeyan of PW5, Akhru Manjhi (informant) recorded on 19.09.1996 at about 1.30 pm by the O/C of Dhamaul P.S. in presence of his co-villager Kailash Manjhi, Ashok Manjhi, Rambalak Manjhi, Chando Manjhi, Karu Manjhi and Videsh Manjhi disclosing therein that on preceeding day at about 4 pm, Ashok Beldar was grazing his she-buffalo near his kitchen garden and during course thereof, his she-buffalo beans plant whereupon, he forbidden. Ashok Beldar became annoyed and abused. When he protested, he (Ashok) raised an alarm whereupon, his brothers Tunni Beldar and Sudhir Beldar came and all of them began to assault him with fists and slaps as well as stick. At that very time, his co-villager Shital Das was standing at some distance and was provoking them to assault by saying that he will see the after-event. When his wife Samkalia Devi came in rescue, all the three appellants assaulted her with sticks as well as fats. They had also assaulted over her stomach. His wife was pregnant of 08 months. In the night itself, she developed pain whereupon, she was taken to police station and from there, she was taken to Dhamaul Health Clinic. During course of treatment, a dead baby from womb of his wife was taken out having blue sign over his head as well as chest. His wife is still suffering with severe pain in her stomach.

3. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Pakribharawan (Dhamaul) P.S. case no. 111 of 1996 was registered whereupon, investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet which ultimately, laid to trial which concluded in a manner, subject matter of instant appeal.

4. The defence case, as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, is that of complete ignorance and denial. However, neither any D.W. nor any chit of paper has been adduced on their behalf.

5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution had examined altogether eight PWs, out of whom, PW1 is Kailash Manjhi, PW2 is Ram Balak Manjhi, PW3 is Sukru Manjhi, PW4 is Samkalia Devi, PW5 is Akhru Manjhi, PW6 is Malo Devi, PW7 is Dr. Arvind Kumar and PW8 is Dr. Ramanand Pd. Singh.

Side by side prosecution had also exhibited Ext1- signature of Kailash Manjhi (PW1) over the fardbeyan, Ext.1/1- signature of Kailash Manjhi over inquest report, Ext.2 series- injury reports relating to PW4 Samkalia Devi as well as PW5 Akhru Manjhi, respectively and Ext.3- post-mortem report.

6. Both the learned counsels have argued independently and pleaded their case independently. Learned counsel for the appellant of Cr. Appeal no. 200 of 2015 has submitted that though his client has been named but without any specification, more particularly, relat