Back
2016 Supreme(Gau) 541
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN, J.
Md. Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (J) No. 87 of 2015
Decided On : 13-12-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. S.K. Agarwal.
For the Respondent: Mr. B. Sarma.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention to cause death in proving an offense under IPC 307, emphasizing the significance of intention in criminal cases.
Headnote:
U/S 326 - Criminal Law - IPC 326, IPC 307, IPC 457 - The court discussed and referenced IPC 326, IPC 307, and IPC 457, focusing on the evidence of the injured persons, medical reports, and the accused's conduct to reach a decision. The court upheld the conviction under IPC 326 and IPC 457 but set aside the conviction under IPC 307 due to lack of intention to cause death.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for assaulting the informant, his mother, and son, causing grievous injuries. The prosecution alleged that the appellant intended to murder them due to a monetary dispute.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the injured persons and the medical reports to be credible, supporting the prosecution's case. However, it concluded that the appellant did not have the intention to cause death, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under IPC 307.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the evidence, the appellant's intention, and the severity of the injuries in relation to the charged offenses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of intention in proving an offense under IPC 307 and carefully analyzed the evidence to determine the appellant's culpability.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the appeal, upholding the convictions under IPC 326 and IPC 457 while setting aside the conviction under IPC 307. The appellant's sentence was reduced to the period already undergone.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Darrang Mangaldoi in Sessions Case No. 15(DM) 12 (GR Case No. 865/11) convicting the accused appellant to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years U/S 326 and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 6 (six) months. The accused appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 6 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 6 (six) months U/S 307 IPC and the accused is sentenced to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of 3 months U/S 457 IPC. All the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case in short is that one Md. Fakir Ali on 14.1.2011 lodged an FIR before the O/C Dalgaon Police Station alleging inter-alia that he has been residing in the house of the appellant Md. Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali for 1½ years after marrying sister of the appellant-Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali. He also stated that about 6 months ago, his wife, sister of the accused expired. The informant was entitled to Rs.3200/- from the appellant-Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali and when he asked for the money the accused person asked him to vacate his house. On 6.1.2011 the accused Hazarat asked him to come to Bechimari market at around 11.00 PM to receive his money but he did not go and on the same night around 1.30 AM the accused person along with 3/4 other persons entered into his house by opening the door in order to commit murder of him and the accused Hazarat assaulted him and his mother Fulmati Bewa aged about 70 years on her stomach by dagger and also assaulted his son Rejaul Ali aged about 7 years in his stomach and on left leg causing grievous injuries. On hearing hue and cry he woke up from the sleep and caught hold of the appellant-Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali but said appellant-Hazarat Ali @ Md. Harzat Ali assaulted on his left hand by dagger and got released from his grab and fled away from the scene. It is stated that due to serious injuries sustaiend his mother and son he had to take them by 108 ambulance to Mangaldoi Civil Hospital for treatment. Therefrom they were referred to GMCH for better treatment. As he was busy in providing treatment to the injured there was delay in lodging the FIR.
3. On receipt of the FIR the O/C Dalgaon Police Station registered the Dalgaon P.S. Case No. 39/11 U/S 457/326 IPC and investigated into the matter and upon conclusion of investigation submitted the charge sheet against the appellant, showing him absconder U/S 457/326/307/323/34 IPC.
4. On committal of the case by the Magistrate concerned, the aforesaid Sessions Case was registered and the learned court of Sessions, Darrang Mangaldoi framed the charge under the aforesaid Sections of law against the appellant. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant who pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. Accordingly, the appellant stood the trial.
5. In order to bring home the aforesaid charges the learned trial court examined 8 (eight) witnesses including 3 number of doctors and the I/O of the case. Accused appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all allegations and he declined to examine any witness in his defence. On the basis of the materials available on record, the learned trial court passed the impugned judgment and order convicting and sentencing the appellant as mentioned above. Hence the appeal.
6. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant Mr. S.K. Agarwal has advanced his argument basically challenging the impugned judgment on the ground of delay in filing the FIR and for having no supporting independent witness to the occurrence and has urged that the conviction and sentence is bad in law and liable to be set aside. On the other hand the learned counsel for the S
