Conviction for grievous assault upheld under Section 307 IPC based on eyewitness accounts, demonstrating shared criminal intention among co-accused; sentence reduced to time served due to prolonged trial duration.

JUDGMENT :

Ramesh Chand Malviya, J.

Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel for the appellants assisted by Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, and Sunil Kumar Yadav, Advocates, Mr. A.M.P.Mehta, learned counsel for the State as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the Informant.

2. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as ‘Cr.P.C’) challenging the Judgment of conviction dated 31.07.2013 and order of sentenced dated 02.08.2013 passed in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 2007 / Trial No.298 of 1989 in connection with Delha P.S. Case No. 90 of 2006 / G.R. No. 2767 of 2006 passed by learned Adhoc Additional District & Sessions Judge-IV, Gaya whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act (hereinafter referred as “IPC”). In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.567 of 2013, the appellants, namely, Santosh Yadav and Rohit Yadav have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. In Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.597 of 2013, the appellant, namely, Guddu Yadav has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the IPC and in default of payment of fine, further sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. He has further been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act and in default of fine further sentence to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. However, both the sentences shall run concurrently for the appellant, namely, Guddu Yadav in Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 597 of 2013.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.11.2006 at about 7 PM. when the informant was coming on a motorcycle after collecting money and reach near the wine shop of appellant Santosh Yadav, he was asked to stop motorcycle where the appellants Rohit Yadav and Guddu Yadav also standing and at the order of appellants Santosh Yadav and Guddu Yadav fired from his country made pistol causing injury to right scapula of Ramchandra Yadav and another fired which hit to one Mukesh Kumar. It is further alleged that appellant Santosh Yadav took out Rs.25,000/- from the pocket of the informant and appellant Rohit Yadav took out golden chain. On the sound of firing as well as hulla of the informant’s, brother namely, Ramjee Prasad Yadav his son and sala came and the informant was taken to police station and from there to hospital where the fardbeyan was given and the FIR was recorded.

4. Further on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Delha P.S. Case NO. 90 of 2006 was lodged against above named accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 307, 326, 379, 504 read with 34 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Investigation Officer recorded the statement of the injured and after finding the occurrence to be true, while continuing the investigation against other co-accused/appellants, he submitted charge-sheet against accused/appellant, namely, Santosh Yadav vide charge-sheet no. 12 of 2007 dated 16.02.2007 under Sections 341, 307 and 504 read with 34 of the IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Thereafter cognizance by the learned Trial Court on 22.02.2007 and on compliance of Section 207 of the Cr.P.C., case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 28.02.2007. Thereafter the In