The provisions of Section 394 of the IPC are applicable only when voluntary hurt is caused during the commission of robbery, either by those who actually cause hurt or by those who are jointly concerned in the commission of robbery without causing hurt.

Debasish Kar Gupta, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order of conviction dated May 30, 2014 and sentence dated May 31, 2014 passed by the Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Krishnagar, Nadia in Sessions Trial No.V (January) of 2012 arising out of Sessions Case no.36 (12) of 2011 under Sections 324/411/394 of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- only in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing the offence under Section 394 of IPC. The appellant was further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- only in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC. He was also sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/- only in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year for committing offence punishable under Section 411 of IPC. The sentence so imposed against the appellant were directed to run concurrently and the period of substantive punishment was subject to usual set off in terms of Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

2. To adjudicate the issues involved in this appeal the fact of this case is discussed in a nutshell hereunder:-

2(a) A written complaint dated August 6, 2011, was lodged by one Parimal Saha, son of let Binod Bihari Saha in Kotwali Police Station, Krishnagar, Nadia(PW.1). According to the above written complaint, construction work was in progress in the house of the complainant lying and situated at Village-Bagane Para, Dom Para, P.S.-Kotwali, District-Nadia (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) for about 20-22 days. On the date of occurrence, i.e., August 6, 2011 at about 11.30 AM one unknown labourer was working at the house of the complainant. He asked Smt. Lovely Saha(P.W. 4), the wife of the complainant to give a "bali chaluni". She asked the aforesaid unknown labourer to take it from the roof of the room. Suddenly, the above unknown labourer entered into the kitchen and started assaulting the wife of the complainant wildly in her head, eyes, mouth and all the body with a fish knife. According to the above written complaint, the wife of the complainant sustained severe injuries. Then the above unknown worker ran away after snatching the gold bracelet, gold ear-ring and gold necklace of the wife of the complainant. The neighbouring people came to the spot hearing hue and cry. The wife of the complaint had been allegedly found in a critical condition by him after returning home and thereafter, she was removed to Saktinagar Hospital, District-Nadia.

2(b) One Biwanath Acharjee, PW 5, a law clerk attached with Krishnagar District Court, scribed the above letter of complaint. The above written complaint was treated as FIR of Kotwali P.S. case no.856/11 dated August 6, 2011. Subsequently, the appellant was arrested. The weapon of offence was recovered and seized (described as "dao" in the seizure list) on August 28, 2011.

2(c) The learned Court below passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences as also record of examination of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Out of 15 prosecution witnesses, PW 4 was the person injured in course of snatching her gold ornaments as recorded herein above.

3. According to Mr. Milon Mukherjee, learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, impugned judgment and order of conviction as also sentence cannot be sustained in accordance with law for the following reasons:-

(i) According to Mr. Mukherjee, no case was made out against the appellant for committing any offence jointly by more than one person. The nature of injury was simple according to the Medical Officer of Bangur Hospital. Therefore, there was no scope for the learned Court below to pass the impugned order of conviction and sentence under the provisi