Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 758
High Court Of Calcutta
PRAVENDU NARAYAN SINHA AND PARTHA SAKHA DATTA, JJ.
MONILAL MANDI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 449 Of 1998
Decided On : 12/01/2006
BHASWATI PAL, KAZI SAFIULLA, P.S.GHOSH, Sanat Chowdhury, SWAPAN KUMAR MALLICK
The intention to kill, not the actuality of the injury, is the gist of an offense under Section 307, I. P. C.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - [SECTION 307, I. P. C.] - [ACT-SECTION REFERRED : SECTION 307, 313, 464(4), I. P. C.; SECTION 148, 149, 325, 326, I. P. C.] - [SUMMARY] : Appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the I. P. C. for causing grievous injury to the victim by piercing an arrow through his shoulder. The court analyzed evidence from witnesses who saw the incident, medical reports, and the victim's statement. It rejected the defense's argument that the appellant acted in self-defense, as the victim had only protested the appellant's unlawful cultivation of his land. The court held that the appellant's intention to kill was evident from the use of a deadly weapon and the severity of the injury. The court also addressed issues related to the delay in filing the FIR, the omission of the appellant's name in the initial statements, and the legality of convicting the appellant alone under Section 307 when the charge was framed under Section 307 read with Section 149. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's judgment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of causing grievous injury to the victim by piercing an arrow through his shoulder. The incident occurred when the victim protested the appellant's unlawful cultivation of his land. The appellant was convicted under Section 307 of the I. P. C. by the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had the intention to kill the victim, as evidenced by the use of a deadly weapon and the severity of the injury. The court also held that the appellant's act was not justified as self-defense, as the victim had only protested the appellant's unlawful cultivation of his land.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant's act was justified as self-defense. 2. Whether the appellant had the intention to kill the victim. 3. Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the omission of the appellant's name in the initial statements affected the case. 4. Whether the conviction of the appellant alone under Section 307 was legal when the charge was framed under Section 307 read with Section 149.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to cultivate land does not confer the right to take away someone's life. 2. The intention to kill, not the actuality of the injury, is the gist of an offense under Section 307, I. P. C. 3. A delay in filing an FIR or the omission of the accused's name in initial statements does not necessarily render the prosecution case unreliable if the evidence adduced is credible and trustworthy. 4. Under Section 464(4), Cr. P. C., a court can convict an accused person of an offense even if the charge was framed jointly with other accused persons.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and order of the lower court. The appellant was directed to surrender before the lower court within a month to serve out the sentence.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred against the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the I. P. C. and sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 8 years with a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment of six months passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Additional court, Bankura on 13-9-1988 in ST. 6 (7)88 arising out of 17 (4)88.
( 2 ) SIX accused persons who faced trial before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge under Section 148/307/149 of the I. P. C. trespassed into the plot No. 345 belonging to Ram Chandra Mandi by force and started ploughing it. When Ram Chandra went to resist them the accused persons hit him by an arrow which pierced through his shoulder resulting serious injury to him. The part of the weapon was still in the body and it could not be extracted out. This incident took place on the land of the injured at 8 a. m. on 26-8-1987.
( 3 ) THIS was the FIR lodged by Ram chandra Mandi with the O. C. Chhatna P. S. at 13. 30 hours on 26-8-1987 whereupon chhalna P. S. Case No. 4/41 dated 26-8-1987 was registered against the six persons under Sections 147/148/149/447/325/ 326 of the I. P. C.
( 4 ) UPON completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the six accused persons under Section 148/149/ 307 of the I. P. C. and the learned trial Court framed charge against all the six accused persons including the lone appellant Ghana alias Motilal alias Monilal Mandi under the aforesaid section of law but upon conclusion of trial convicted the appellant alone under Section 307, I. P. C. and acquitted the others of the charges by the judgment and order impugned.
( 5 ) THERE are 14 witnesses of whom P. W. 1 is the injured who had lodged the FIR. He says that on 19th of Bhadra at 7/8 a. m. he and one Mahadev (P. W. 3) were ploughing a field when he noticed the six accused persons ploughing his own allotted land being plot No. 345 of mouza Singargora. He protested when the appellant hit him by an arrow towards the right shoulder around the collar bone while two other accused namely sahab and Manmatha assaulted him by lathi. It appears from his cross-examination that Hapan Mandi and Lilu Mandi were two brothers. P. W. 1 is the son of Hapan while haripada and Shambhu were the sons of lilu. The accused persons are children of shambhu. There had been litigations between P. W. 1 and accused persons over the joint properties which were, however, settled amicably by amicable arrangement and according to p. W. 1 though the accused persons have their shares in plot No. 345 the portion which they were forcibly cultivating at the time did not belong to them because the same was allotted exclusively in his favour by amicable arrangement. However, he says that he had been in the hospital for 17/18 days where he was operated. He could speak to some extent only in his house after he was taken from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence and he could not understand at the time as to what was that. He tried to speak but could not do so fully. It was P. W. 13 Sudhir Kar who scribed the ejahar (Ext. 3) wherein he put his L. T. I.
( 6 ) P. W. 2 Smt. Churamoni Mandi, the wife of P. W. 1 says that when her husband went to protest against the actions of the accused persons appellant pierced an arrow on the right hand shoulder region of her husband who fell down in the ground. At the material point of time she was washing utensils in a doba which according to her was at distance of 30/40 cubits away from the land of her husband where the accused persons were ploughing. Cross-examination of this witness did not reveal anything formidable and in fact on the fact-in-issue there was no cross-examination. P. W. 3 is Mahadev murmu with whom P. W. 1 was ploughing and he (P. W. 3) says when P. W. 1 protested against cultivation of P. W. 1's land by the accused persons appellant Ghana hit P. W. 1 by an arrow. Now, it has appeared in cross-examina
