Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
DEBANGSU BASAK, J.
Rakesh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
CRA(SB) No.3 of 2023
Decided On : 03-04-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 308 - Assault - [Section 308 of the IPC, 1860] - The court upheld the judgment of conviction under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 but modified the sentence based on mitigating circumstances. The appellant was set at liberty with the subsisting bail bond remaining in force for six months.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for assaulting the victim with a wooden batton, causing dangerous injuries. The victim did not undergo hospitalization for the prescribed period to classify the injuries as grievous hurt. The appellant did not attempt to flee the place of occurrence and did not make any forcible entry into the victim's room.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the judgment of conviction but modified the sentence, considering the mitigating circumstances and the period of incarceration the appellant underwent during the trial.
Issues: Conviction under section 308 of the IPC, 1860, quantum of punishment, and mitigating circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the nature of the injuries, the appellant's conduct at the place of occurrence, and the absence of forcible entry as mitigating circumstances in modifying the sentence.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment of conviction is upheld, and the order of sentence is modified. The appellant is set at liberty with the subsisting bail bond remaining in force for six months.
JUDGMENT :
Debangsu Basak, J.
1. The appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated July 08, 2022 and the order of sentence dated July 11, 2022 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Sessions Case No.03 of 2021, Sessions Trial No.17 of 2021.
2. By the impugned judgment of conviction, learned Trial Court found the appellant guilty of offence punishable under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. By the impugned order of conviction, the learned Judge sentenced the appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the ingredients of section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 were not established at the trial. He draws the attention of the Court to the injuries suffered by the victim. He refers to section 308 of the IPC, 1860. He submits that, intention to inflict hurt for culpable homicide not amounting to murder was not established at the trial. In support of his contention, he draws the attention of the Court to the depositions of various prosecution witnesses and the injury report marked as exhibits at the trial.
4. He therefore submits that, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence should be reversed.
5. Learned advocate for the State submits that, the prosecution was able to establish the charge under section 308 of the IPC, 1860 by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. She refers to the depositions of various prosecution witnesses including the documents marked as exhibits at the trial.
6. Police registered the First Information Report on the basis of a complaint dated March 10, 2020 of prosecution witness (PW-1). On the basis of the first information report dated March 10, 2020, police conducted investigation and submitted the charge sheet as against the accused. Charge against the accused was framed on November 02, 2021 under section 308 of the IPC, 1860.
7. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried in respect of such charge.
8. In order to establish the charge, prosecution examined ten witnesses. Prosecution also relied upon various documents which were marked as exhibits at the trial. On conclusion of the evidence of prosecution, the appellant was examined under section 313 of the Cr.P.C where he claimed to be innocent. He denied examining any defence witnesses at the trial.
9. At the trial, the case of the prosecution was that the appellant, on March 09, 2020 at about 8 PM in the house of the victim, assaulted the victim with wooden batton causing her hurt with the intention of committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
10. The victim as examined as prosecution witness (PW)-1. In cross-examination in chief, the victim stated that the incident took place at about 8.30 PM on the fateful day. The appellant was standing near a newly constructed shed. When she was trying to close the door of her house, the appellant entered into the room. Appellant wanted to sleep and she requested him to go away from the room. The appellant also stated that his parents did not allow him and again sought permission to sleep in the room. Appellant wanted some drinking water. When the victim gave water to the appellant, he assaulted the victim with a wooden batton. Thereafter, the victim went out of the room to the house of Rajkumar and informed the fact. Thereafter, Rajkumar took the victim to her house. After that, the victim was shifted to hospital. She identified the appellant in Court. She also stated that, she made a statement before the police. She also handed over the wearing apparels to the police. In cross-examination, the victim stated that the appellant did not enter into the house forcefully.
11. PW-2 is the person who took the victim to the hospital. He stated that, there was an incident of assault which took place between two persons on March 09, 2020 at about 8.30 PM at the house of the victim. He identified his signature on the seizure as
Mitigating circumstances and the nature of injuries can be considered in modifying the sentence under section 308 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the nature of the injury and the intention or knowledge of the accused are essential in determining the appropriate offence under the IPC.
Participation in an assault leading to death can sustain a conviction under IPC Sections 304(Part II) and 447, even if the accused did not inflict the fatal blow.
The court established that intent to commit culpable homicide must be clearly evidenced by the nature of injuries, which was not the case here.
The court clarified that for a conviction under section 307 IPC, there must be clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not established in this case.
The court held that the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the victim's testimony, the medical evidence, and the seizure of the weapon, and that t....
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
