Back
2018 Supreme(Pat) 356
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI, J.
Suraj Choudhary son of Late Sajiwan Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.472 of 2015
Decided On : 04-04-2018
For the Appellant :Mr. Y. V. Giri, Sr. Advocate Mr. Pranav Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Binod Bihari Singh, APP
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent testimonies, medical evidence, and documentary evidence to establish guilt, while also considering the legal ownership of the disputed land and the plea of right of private defence.
Headnote:
IPC - Assault and Offences Against Public Tranquility - Section 323, Section 324, Section 325, Section 147, Section 148 - [Summary of the acts and sections referenced and discussed by the court]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were found guilty of assaulting the victims at their Bathan, causing injuries and stealing their belongings. The motive for the occurrence was a dispute over the Bathan, and a proceeding under Section 107 CrPC was ongoing. The prosecution presented witnesses and documentary evidence to support their case, while the defense denied the allegations and presented their own documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellants guilty based on the testimonies of the injured witnesses and the medical evidence. The court also considered the documentary evidence presented by both the prosecution and the defense. The court noted the ongoing land dispute and the litigious history between the parties.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the credibility of the witnesses, the presence of the unlawful assembly, and the ownership of the disputed land. The court also considered the plea of right of private defence raised by the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent testimonies of the injured witnesses, the medical evidence, and the documentary evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. The court also considered the legal ownership of the disputed land and the plea of right of private defence.
Final Decision: The court partially allowed the appeal, substituting the substantial sentence with the privilege provided under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The appellants were directed to execute a bond and maintain peace and harmony, failing which they would face the substantial sentence.
1. Appellants, Suraj Choudhary, Kaisar Alam, Pintu Choudhary, Sheo Kumar Choudhary, Sahzad Alam, Babuddin Ansari, Gopalji Choudhary, Rajendra Choudhary, Dharmnath Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year, under Section 324 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, under Section 325 IPC, each one has been sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years, appellants, Suraj Choudhary, Gopalji Choudhary and Sheo Kumar Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo RI for 1 year while remaining, namely, Kaisar Alam, Pintu Choudhary, Sahzad Alam, Babuddin Ansari, Rajendra Choudhary and Dharmnath Choudhary have been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 2 years with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.06.2015 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 357/2004.
2. Samsul Haque (PW-8) gave his Fard-e-beyan on 26.04.2002 at 8.00 AM while he was admitted at Sadar Hospital, Siwan in an injured condition alleging inter alia that while he along with his brother, Manir Ansari (PW-1) and son, Murad Alam, (PW-9) were sleeping at his Bathan in between night of 25/26.04.2002, on 26.04.2002 at about 3.00 AM, his co-villagers, Suraj Choudhary armed with Lathi, Rajendra Choudhary armed with Farsa, Dharmnath Choudhary armed with Chhura, Sheo Choudhary armed with Lathi, Pintu Choudhary armed with Katta (fire arm), Raj Kumar Choudhary, Sanjay Choudhary, both armed with Chhura, Gopal Choudhary, Dewanand Choudhary, both armed with Lathi, Babuddin Ansari armed with Bhala, Kaisar Alam, Sahzad Alam both armed with gun, all of a sudden came at his Bathan and began to uproot whereupon he got awaken. Seeing the same, he raised alarm whereupon, Suraj, Rajendra and Dharmnath ordered to kill. Dharmnath gave a Chhura blow with an intention to kill causing injury over his left hand as well as nose as a result of which, he fell down. Then thereafter, others began to assault with Lathi. On hue and cry, his brother Manir and son Murad came in his rescue and during course thereof, Rajendra gave Farsa blow over his brother Manir causing injury upon him. Suraj provoked to kill whereupon Rajendra repeatedly gave Farsa blow, as a result of which, Manir became severely injured. He became senseless. After falling him down, Babuddin gave Bhala blow over Manir with an intention to kill causing injury near his eye. Then thereafter, Babuddin gave Bhala blow over his son, Murad causing injury over his nose. Rest assaulted him with Lathi and Danda. Kaisar and Sahzad fired from gun while Pintu fired from Katta but non sustained injury. Then thereafter, they all took away his belongings, kept in a attaché including cash, wrist watch etc. On hue and cry, the persons of surroundings, namely, Md. Naim Sah, Marif Raza, Laxman Singh, Amar Singh and others came who witnessed the occurrence and also took them to Sadar Hospital, Siwan where they were being treated.
3. The motive for the occurrence has been shown as dispute persisting in between Kaisar and Osijar Choudhary relating to aforesaid Bathan and for that a proceeding under Section 107 CrPC was going on.
4. After recording the Fard-e-beyan, Uchakagaon PS Case No. 39/2002 was registered followed with an investigation as well as submission of charge-sheet facilitating the trial, meeting with ultimate result, subject matter of the instant appeal.
5. Defence case as is evident from the mode of cross-examination as well as statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC is that of complete denial. Furthermore, it has also been pleaded that in the background of land dispute, after getting false and frivolous injury report, got this case filed. Though no ocular evidence has been adduced but, documentary
