Smt. Anjana Prakash, J.(Oral)—On the last occasion the appeal was directed to be listed even without the Lower Court Records since it was of the year 2000, to be disposed of with the assistance of the records to be produced by the Counsel for the Appellants.
2. The Appellant No.1 has been convicted under Section 324 I.P.C. whereas Appellants No.2 to 5 have been convicted under Section 323 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for one year and half years and six months respectively by a judgment dated 19.7.2000 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No.2 of 1988.
3. The case of the Informant Lakhindar Paswan (P.W.7) is that when he was returning on 24.1.1986 after having answered the call of nature, all the Appellants variously armed surrounded him as also assaulted him with their weapons. On alarm having been raised by him witnesses arrived, where after the accused persons fled away.
4. During trial the prosecution examined nine witnesses in all. Out of whom, P.W.8 Shiva Chandra Prasad Singh and P.W.9 Chandeshwar Pd. Singh are formal in nature and have proved the First Information Report and the injury reports. P.W.1 Ramji Paswan, P.W.2 Chandradeo Choudhary, P.W.3 Punit Paswan, P.W.4 Panchu Paswan, P.W.5 Nathu Paswan, P.W.6 Chandra Bhushan Sah and P.W.7 Lakhindar Paswan, the Informant, have supported the case of the prosecution.
5. P.W.7 Lakhindar Paswan, the informant, stated that Appellant Ashok Mahto had inflicted farsa injuries on his head and in course of saving his head cut injuries were caused on both his hands. The rest of the accused persons assaulted him with lathies, whereas accused Prasad Mahto and Appellant Vishwanath Mahto were giving orders. He was then removed to the Hospital, where he gave his fard beyan.
6. P.W.1 Ramji Paswan, P.W.2 Chandradeo Choudhary, P.W.4 Panchu Paswan, P.W.5 Nathu Paswan and P.W.6 Chandra Bhushan Sah all supported the prosecution case in all material particulars.
7. However, neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer have been examined by the prosecution.
8. It has been submitted on behalf of the Appellants that in absence of any corroboration from medical report it was highly unsafe to rely on the sole ocular testimony of the witnesses and the Appellants deserve to be acquitted.
9. However, considering that all the witnesses have consistently supported each other on all particulars, I see no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence to the extent that the imprisonment undergone by the Appellants during trial shall be sufficient sentence in the interest of justice.
