Back
2017 Supreme(Pat) 964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Ramdeo Sah Son of Late Rudal Sah & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.693 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 782 of 2015
Decided On : 25-07-2017
For the Appellants :Mr. Umesh Chandra Verma, Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP, Mr. Sujit Kr. Singh, APP
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Section 307 IPC in determining the guilt of the appellants for assault and attempt to murder.
Headnote:
Section 307 IPC - Assault and Attempt to Murder - [Section 307 IPC] - The court found the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. The judgment discusses the nature of the injury, the action of the accused, and the evidence presented to substantiate the conviction under Section 307 IPC. The court also highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations in reaching the decision.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellants were found guilty of assault and attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. The prosecution's case was based on the assault on the victim with a Chhura, resulting in severe injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC based on the evidence presented, including the nature of the injury and the actions of the accused. The court also considered the arguments presented by the defence but ultimately upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC for some appellants while setting aside the conviction for others.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the injury, the actions of the accused, and the evidence presented by the prosecution and the defence. The court also addressed the absence of certain evidence and the arguments raised by the defence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the nature of the injury, the specific actions of the accused, and the evidence presented, including the testimony of witnesses and the medical examination. The court also considered the legal provisions under Section 307 IPC and their interpretation in reaching its decision.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction under Section 307 IPC for some appellants while setting aside the conviction for others. The court also modified the sentences based on its findings.
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 693/2015 wherein Ramdeo Sah, Chandradeo Sah, Brahmdeo Sah and Banka Sah are the appellants and Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 782/2015 wherein Sakaldeo Sah is the appellant arise out of against common judgment of conviction dated 05.102015 and order of sentence dated 08.10.2015 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 2015/23 of 2015 whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, under Section 341 IPC and sentenced to undergo SI for 7 days, appellant Sakaldeo Sah has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years as well as fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for six months additionally. No separate sentence has been inflicted for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC while remaining appellants have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 307/149 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years as well as to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, to undergo SI for six months with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently.
2. PW-5, Chanda Devi gave her Fardbeyan on 20.03.2000 at about 10 PM at the clinic of Dr. Ajay Kumar situated at Mohalla-Raja Bazar of Motihari Town stating therein that on the same day at about 7:00 PM, she was at her Darwaza. Deck was being played which was being enjoyed by her husband along with co-villagers. At that very time, Ramdeo Sah, Chandradeo Sah, Hunar Sah, Brahmdeo Sah, Sakaldeo, Lalbabu Sah, Harendra Sah,, Vikram Sah, Ramayana Sah, Ramagya Sah, Banka Sah and Langtu Sah, covillagers forming an unlawful assembly having variously armed, raided her Darwaza and on an order of Ramdeo and Sakaldeo, they began to assault her husband with Lathi. Then thereafter, Banka gave dagger to Sakaldeo and ordered to kill whereupon Sakaldeo inflicted repeatedly Chhura blows over her husband causing injury over his stomach. His intestine came out. There was profuse bleeding. Sundar, Madan, Nigam, Shankar, Virendra and other rushed to rescue her husband as well as also seen the occurrence. Then thereafter, injured was lifted to the clinic of Dr. Ajay Kumar where his treatment was going on. The motive for occurrence has been shown as, in absence of her husband who had gone to Kathmandu, Sakaldeo, Ramdeo and others brutally assaulted her for which a case was instituted. Accused persons were coercing to compromise the case and for that, they had also threatened her husband. They are insisting upon that either to compromise the case or they will have to lose their life.
3. After registration of Turkaulia PS Case No. 54/2000, the investigation commenced and concluded by way of submission of charge-sheet in different stages on account of which accused persons were taken up for trial in same manner subsequently, been amalgamated and then one trial was allowed to proceed which ultimately concluded in a manner, subject matter of instant appeal.
4. Defence case as is evident from mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC is that of complete denial. It has further been suggested that the date of occurrence was Holi and on the eve of Holi, the prosecution party got deeply boozed and during course of rejoicing the same having a bottle of wine in his hand, fell down whereupon broken piece of glass pierced his stomach causing injury which has been taken as a boon for institution of this case in the background of longstanding enmity persisting amongst the parties. However, appellants did not produce oral nor documentary evidence in their support.
5. In order to substantiate its case, prosecution examined altogether six witnesses out of whom PW-1, Hira Lal Sah, PW-2, Bagar Sah, PW-3, Jhigan Sah, PW-4, Binod Kumar, PW-5, Chanda Devi and PW-6, Dr. Ajay Kumar. Side by side had
