Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Bibek Chaudhuri, J.
Yeakub Mondal And Others - Appellant
Versus
State Of West Bengal - Respondent
CRA 78 of 2016
Decided On : 28-04-2022
Conviction - Indian Penal Code - Sections 325/34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, Sections 325/34 - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that the prosecution successfully proved the charge against the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the nature of the dispute between the parties, existence of civil suits, and the fact that the accused persons are relatives of both the de-facto complainant and injured.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal was filed by the Convicts of Sessions Case No. 56(4)/2007 assailing the order of conviction under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under the above penal provisions. The case involved an incident where a group of people illegally trespassed into the house of the de facto complainant, assaulted family members, and committed theft.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully proved the charge against the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the nature of the dispute between the parties, existence of civil suits, and the fact that the accused persons are relatives of both the de-facto complainant and injured.
Issues: The issues included the nature of the dispute, the evidence of the witnesses, and the involvement of the accused persons in the assault and theft.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the successful proof of the charge against the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the consideration of the nature of the dispute between the parties and the relationship between the accused persons and the de-facto complainant and injured.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the appeal and directed the release of the appellants on probation for two years, with the appellants being placed under the control of the Probationary Officer for the specified period.
JUDGMENT
Bibek Chaudhuri, J. - This is an appeal filed by the Convicts of Sessions Case No. 56(4)/2007 assailing the order of conviction under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code and consequent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable under the above penal provisions.
2. One Jahangir Mondal lodged a written complaint to the Officer- in-Charge, Tehatta Police Station on 12th May, 1999 alleging, inter alia, that on 12th May he went to his mango grove at village Digbareya at about 6.00 A.M. At about 8.00 A.M. his son, Kedi Rahaman informed him that a number of people illegally trespassed into his house and caused assault to his family members. It was stated by the de facto complainant that at the southern side of his house, he stacked straw and his younger brother was raising a fencing around the heaps of straw. His avuncular brothers, namely Asbar, Nasir and Delwar Mondal used the said place as a pathway. They restrained the younger brother of the de facto complainant to raise a fencing around the said area and over the said issue a dispute cropped up between them, there was altercation and quarrel between the above- mentioned two groups for few days. On the date of occurrence, the said Asbar, Nasir and Delwar Mondal with 20/25 persons being armed with 'lathi', 'dragger', 'bomb', 'crowbar', 'pipe gun' etc. entered into the house of the de facto complainant and assaulted his father, Hekmat Mondal, Kanu @ Mahiruddin and one Aroj Ali. The father of the de facto complainant received bleeding injury on being hit with the help of a 'crowbar'. After assaulting the father of the de facto complainant they trespassed into the house of his uncle, Nefajuddin Mondal and Manoj Mondal and also assaulted them with 'lathi', 'iron rod', 'hashua' etc. Accused Delwar Mondal, Bashed Mondal, Ajid Mondal, Akem Sk. and Abdul Sk. also hurled 'bombs' in order to frighten the de facto complainant and his family members. They also committed theft of one television set and kitchenware from the house of Nafajuddin Mondal and one table fan and a television set from the house of Abdul Kalam. As a result of assault Aroj Ali, Hekmat Mondal, Patu Mondal, Hajera Bibi, Kanu @ Mahiruddin, Abdul Kalam and Anwara Bibi sustained serious injury on their persons and they were medically treated. Abdul Kalam suffered injury when the accused persons threw bomb towards him. Patu Mondal sustained fracture in his hand. The injured persons were taken to local hospital.
3. Thereafter, they were referred to Shaktinagar hospital.
4. On the basis of the said written complaint, Police registered Tehatta Police Station Case No. 81/1999 under Sections 147/148/149/447/379/325/326/307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act along with Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act.
5. On filing of the charge-sheet the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Nadia. Subsequently, the trial of the case was taken up by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Fast Track Court, Krishnagar. Charge was framed against 15 accused persons under Sections 447/34 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 326/34 and Sections 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the accused persons pleaded not guilty the Learned Trial Judge commenced trial of the case. During trial, prosecution examined in all 15 witnesses. Some documents were also marked exhibits. On the basis of the evidence-on-record, both oral and documentary, the Learned Trial Judge convicted the appellants for committing offence under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of other charges the appellants were acquitted. After convicting the accused persons in the manner stated above, the Learned Trial Judge handed down the sentence as stated above. The instant appeal has been filed by the convicts/appellants assailing the judgment
The main legal point established in the judgment is the successful proof of the charge against the appellants under Sections 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the application of the Probati....
The court considered discrepancies in the complainant's statement but ultimately relied on the evidence of the witnesses and the nature of the injuries to uphold the conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of proof for the specific elements of each charge under the Indian Penal Code.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely lodging of FIR, the importance of evidence in proving the intention and knowledge of the accused in outraging the modest....
The court affirmed the convictions under IPC, emphasizing common intention in participation of crimes and granted probation due to the nature of the offences and first-time offender status.
The court held that while the standard of evidence met guilt under Section 324, it did not suffice for Section 307; a reformative sentencing was favored due to the delay in justice and the appellants....
A conviction can be altered from attempted murder to voluntarily causing hurt when intent to kill is not sufficiently proven within the evidence presented, affirming the principle of rehabilitation f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's decision to affirm the guilt of the petitioners for certain offences under the Indian Penal Code, set aside the judgment of conviction ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
