The court ruled that mere infliction of simple injuries does not imply intent to kill, emphasizing that the determination of culpability under Section 307 IPC hinges on the accused's intention.

JUDGMENT :

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J.)

Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bimal Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 11 and Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, learned APP for the State.

2. This appeal has been preferred for setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.05.2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned judgment/order’) passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge-II, Katihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘learned trial court’) in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 2012 arising out of Mansahi P.S. Case No. 117 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the respondent nos. 2 to 11 have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 148, 380, 307 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘IPC’) and they have been held guilty for lesser offences under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC. Having held respondent nos. 2 to 11 guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 read with Section 149 IPC, the learned trial court has sentenced them for simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Sections 323/149 IPC and a simple imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs. 10,000/-under Section 325/149 IPC. In case of default in payment of fine, the convicts have to undergo a further imprisonment of two months in each of these Sections. All the punishments are to run concurrently.

3. Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted at the outset that he would confine his submissions limited to the acquittal of respondent nos. 2 to 11 for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.

4. It is submitted that the learned trial court has acquitted the respondents of the charge under Section 307 IPC on absolutely erroneous appreciation of the evidences and by ignoring eyewitnesses of the occurrence, therefore, the judgment of the learned trial court, to the said extent is liable to be set aside and the respondent nos. 2 to 11 would be liable to be convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Suresh Paswan (PW-4). It is stated that on 18.12.2011 at about 2:30 PM, the informant was constructing his house on the purchased land and sikmi land under Indira Awas Yojana, in the meantime his co-villagers, who are the ten named accused persons in the fardbeyan, and 20-25 unknown persons who were called from outside, all armed with khanti, lathi-danda came abusing the informant and claimed that it was their land so how the informant was constructing house on the said land. PW-4 alleged in his fardbeyan that after saying this, the accused persons assaulted the informant’s brother Hari Nandan Paswan, Anirudh Paswan, Kaushalya Devi, Shambhu Paswan, Ashok Paswan and Ranjan Kumar on their head, leg and body causing them injuries.

The informant alleged that he and other persons became unconscious. On hearing hulla, the local persons assembled at the place of occurrence, then the accused person, namely, Deep Narayan Paswan instigated other persons to commit loot-pat in the house, they entered in the house and took away a sum of Rs. 20,000/-of Indira Awas. PW-4 further alleged that the accused persons took away ten bora of paddy from the house of Anirudh Paswan and set the house at fire, as a result whereof, the house was burnt. The informant claimed that with the help of local people, they were brought to the Sadar Hospital, Katihar, in course of treatment also the accused persons were threatening to kill the entire family otherwise they should flee away. The informant claimed that he had given information of this occurrence to DM in Janta Darbar on 14.12.2011 but no action was taken there on.

6. It appears that on the basis of the fardbeyan of PW-4 recorded by ASI Mithilesh Paswan on 18.12.2011 at 17 hours at Katihar Sadar Hospital, a formal FIR was registered on the same day at 10:00 PM. The fardbeyan has been marked Exhibit ‘1’ on behalf of