Background facts, in a nutshell, are as follows On 11.8.1992 at 7.00 a.m. the informant was going to see his transplanted paddy in the field and when he reached near the Ahari Payin, he saw the appellants behind palm tree armed with Garasa and companyntry made rifle.
The appellants began to abuse him, which was protested by the informant.
Finally the trial companycluded with the result as indicated above.
On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was drawn up.
The IO was number examined who companyld have explained the delay in registering the FIR and dispatching the same to the Court and numberreason was indicated as to why he was number examined.
Additionally, respondents were companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 for short Arms Act and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years.
It has been stated that prior to this occurrence two days earlier an altercation had taken place in between the informant and the accused persons on use of irrigational water.
Though the judgment of the High Court is very sketchy, we find that vital facts have been numbered by the High Court.
The incident is supposed to have taken place on 11.8.1992.
But ultimately it was numbered that PWs.
The informant has filed these appeals questioning acquittal.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was submitted, companynizance was taken and the case was companymitted to the companyrt of Sessions.
In fact, the first information report shows that the fardbeyan was on 11.8.1992 at 1400 hrs.
The first information report was lodged on 13.8.1992.
In appeal, the High Court found that the prosecution has number been able to establish the accusations and directed acquittal.
The Trial Court found the evidence to be companyent and accordingly sentenced the accused persons.
But there were three injuries.
Thereupon, accused Ramchandra ordered his son accused Shravan to fire and Sravan fired upon the informant which hit his right chest.
Strangely, the doctor PW 7 stated that on the basis of requisition received from the police, he had examined the informant on 11.8.1992 at 11.30 a.m. Learned companynsel for the appellant tried to explain that the fardbeyan was recorded on 11.8.1992.
The informant after sustaining injuries sat down and thereafter he was taken to Magadh Medical Hospital where he was treated and his Fardbeyan was recorded by the I. of police.
Additionally, the report reached Court on 14.8.1992.
and the first information report is registered at 13.8.1992 at 1130 am.
1, 5 and 6 were stated to be the eye witnesses.
1 and 5 were number eye witnesses and the prosecution version primarily rested on the evidence of PW 6, the injured informant.
Additionally, evidence of PW 6 is also companytrary to the medical evidence in a sense that according to him there was one shot.
In support of the appeal learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that there was numberbasis to discard the evidence of PW 6 and, therefore, the High Court should number have directed acquittal.
The occurrence according to first information report took place at 7.00 a.m. on 11.8.1992.
8 witnesses were examined to further the prosecution version of whom PWs.
Each of the accused persons was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. These appeals have been filed by the informant questioning the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court directing acquittal of the respondents 1 2.
The appellant pleaded number guilty and stated that they had been falsely implicated in this case.
