Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
Braj Nandan Prasad Singh, J.
Jhabbu Pandey
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 126 of 2002 ;
Decided On : JULY 7, 2003
Toddy Shop Incident - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 307, Section 324 - The court discussed the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, doctor's findings, and police investigation, to determine the appellant's guilt. The court found that the injuries suffered by the victim were caused by the appellant's actions, but concluded that the appellant's acts fell within the scope of Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of Section 307, leading to a reduction in the appellant's sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant allegedly shot and injured the victim outside a toddy shop. The victim was taken to the hospital for treatment, and the appellant was later convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of causing injury to the victim but reduced the conviction from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, leading to a reduction in the appellant's sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witness testimonies, the findings of the doctor, and the adequacy of the police investigation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, doctor's findings, and police investigation, to determine the appellant's guilt and the appropriate section of the Indian Penal Code applicable to the case.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was reduced from Section 307 to Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and the sentence was reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant in custody. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was directed to be set free.
BRAJ NANDAN PRASAD SINGH, J.
1. The appellant and the victim were rejoicing in a toddy shop and it was alleged that when victim Krishna Kumar Paswan (PW 4) came out from toddy shop of Sudama Devi to make water, Jhabbu Pandey, the appellant, too followed him and fired shot causing injury in the region of thigh, when he dropped on the ground. The injured was taken to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for treatment. The Police Officer shortly on receipt of information about the incident, rushed to the place of occurrence and though noticed appellant in custody of some persons with injuries, did not find the injured. It was, however, informed by the persons available at the place of occurrence that the injured had been carried to Darbhanga Medical College and Hospital for treatment. The Police Officer stated to have rushed to hospital and recorded statement of the injured at 6.30 p.m. After fardbeyan of injured was recorded by the Police Officer, as usual, first information report was drawn up and investigation followed. In course of investigation, the Police Officer visited place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, secured injury report of the victim from the hospital, seized upper part of cartridge from place of occurrence, took custody of wearing apparels of the injured from him and on conclusion of investigation, laid charge-sheet before the Court against the appellant and three others.
2. Though four persons were put on trial, three having been acquitted at trial, the appellant alone suffered conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a term of seven years. Though the trial Court found him guilty also under Arms Act. no finding about sentence was recorded on this count.
3. In the eventual trial that followed, as has been stated, the State examined altogether six witnesses who are injured, other witnesses, doctor and also the Police Officer. The finding recorded by the Court below is sought to be assailed by learned counsel for the appellant on premises that if prosecution version was given any credence, as it is, barring solitary testimony of the injured, there has been no statement of any witness lending assurance to testimony of PW 4 and also that evidence of witnesses suffers major contradictions on the point that the appellant had shot at the injured. While commenting on the finding recorded by the doctor, learned counsel would urge that though the prosecution case gives impression that the appellant fired one shot, the doctor, not in uncertain terms has recorded finding that the injuries noticed on the person of the injured were caused from different shots, and while commenting on objective finding recorded by the Police Officer, learned counsel would urge that even though the injured is shown to have suffered grievous injury, blood was not found at the place of occurrence and even though the police stated to have taken into custody, the wearing apparels of injured from the hospital, there has been no finding of chemical examiner about blood stains on the wearing apparels to be that of human blood, and that apart, that wearing apparels too was not exhibited at trial.
4. The facts of the case are tell a tale which evidently suggest that shortly after PW 4 came out of toddy shop to respond the natures call, the appellant fired a shot on the region of thigh on the victim for which the doctor noticed corresponding injury on thigh of the injured, and the said injury was considered to be grievous in nature. Though one witness stated about seizure of upper part of cartridge by the Police Officer, during cross-examination he stated to have put his signature on the seizure memo without going through its contents. Though this witness has resiled from previous version which he rendered earlier before the police about seizure of incriminating object in his presence, he resiled from his version eventually in his cross-examination, it is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
