Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 1415
PATNA HIGH COURT
Gopal Prasad, J.
Jagdish Rai
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 260 of 1997
Decided On : JULY 13, 2011
The requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and the need for the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused persons.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Section 307, 148, 323, 447 - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Section 307, IPC Section 148, IPC Section 323, IPC Section 447 - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defense, the nature of injuries sustained, and the lack of explanation for injuries on the accused persons. The court emphasized the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and the need for the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused persons.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under various sections of the Indian Penal Code for an incident involving a physical altercation and property damage. The prosecution alleged that the appellant and others attacked the informant and his family, causing injuries and property damage.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not establish the intention to kill required for conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also noted the lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused persons and the existence of a counter case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the nature of injuries, the burden of proof, and the lack of explanation for injuries sustained by the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt and the need for the prosecution to explain injuries on the accused persons.
Final Decision: The order of conviction and sentence against the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Gopal Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 148, 323 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, one year for offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, three months for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and three months for offence under Section 447 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it has been ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case as alleged by the informant Arun Kumar Singh is that on 19.04.1985 at about 11:30 A.M., the informant saw that Jagdish Rai was fighting with his younger brother Barun Kumar Singh and then he rushed there and intervened in the matter. Jagdish Rai abused and came with Bhala along with Ram Ayodhaya armed with bamboo tona and Shiv Nath armed with lathi followed by 20-25 persons variously armed with Lathi, Bhala and Danda and they attacked on the mill of the informant. The informant has sustained injury in his right hand. It is further alleged that Jagdish Rai indiscriminately assaulted the informant with Bhala and when Barun Singh the brother of the informant came to his rescue he was also assaulted by Danda portion of Bhala by Jagdish Rai and further when the younger brother of the informant Tarun Singh came to his rescue then he was also assaulted by Jagdish Rai by the Danda portion of Bhala and they also indiscriminately brickbat of the house of the informant causing damage of the Khapraposh roof of the house and entire Angan became flooded with brickbats and took away wooden Kari worth Rs.2500/-.
4. On the fardbeyan of the informant, the FIR was lodged and charge-sheet was submitted and on the submission of the charge-sheet, 3 cognizance was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of sessions. However, after commitment the charge was framed and during the trial nine witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution side.
5. P.W. 1 is Barun Kumar Singh, P.W. 2 is Raj Kishore Singh, P.W. 3 is Tarun Kumar Singh, P. W. 4 is Bharat Prasad Singh. P.W. 5 is Arun Kumar Singh the informant, P.W. 6 is Doctor N.K.P. Saha, P.W. 7 is Anil Tiwari, P.W. 8 is Dasaye Rai and P.W. 9 is Nagendra Tiwari. However, it has been contended that P.W. 6 is the doctor. P.Ws. 7, 8 and 9 are formal witnesses who proved the formal F.I.R. The I.O. of the case has not been examined. After considering the oral and documentary evidence the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned lower court as stated above.
6. However, five persons were tried together along with appellant though they were convicted under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and allied Sections of the Indian Penal Code but they were given the benefit of Section 360 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, contended that taking into consideration the allegation and the evidence adduced, the medical evidence does not suggest even accepted on the face value that the assault was made with intention to kill and the injury on the persons of the injured either taken singly even the cumulative effect does not make out a case for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been contended that a counter case has been filed bearing Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 54 of 1985 with regard to the occurrence at same time and place and the fardbeyan was recorded in the hospital and the injury was found on the person of Shivnath Rai, Jagdish Rai and Ram Ayodhaya Rai who are the accused in this case and in the said case the charge-sheet was submitted and the fardbeyan, FIR, the injury report and the charge-sheet have been proved as Exts. A, B, C and D in this case and hence contended that even if the prosecution case is accepted then the injury on the persons of the accused person
