Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Ajit Borthakur, J.
Ganesh Jangre, S/o Late Gobardhan Jangre – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Assam – Respondent
Crl. A. 73 of 2010
Decided On : 14-06-2018
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code - Section 341 – Evidence – Injured – Murder - Pleaded innocence and declined to examine any witness in defense - Then, on appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution side and hearing counsel of both sides convicted the appellant under Section IPC and sentenced as stated above – Held, which is a sharp cutting weapon was seized by seizure memo - Appellant in his statement under Section 313 stated that occurrence took place in darkness of night and his family knew him from before – Thus evidence of that they could identify assailant appellant has been reinforced by appellant’s aforesaid statement recorded under Section 313 and altercation that preceded incident of assault by appellant who was known to them from before - Therefore this court finds that identity of the appellant as assailant of injured is proved beyond all reasonable doubt – Appeal allowed
Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The appellant, Ganesh Jangre, was convicted for causing injuries to the injured, Jiten Harijan, by means of a sharp cutting weapon, specifically a ‘khukuri’ (!) (!) (!) .
The injuries sustained by the victim included multiple cut wounds, including the loss of four fingers of his left hand, which were supported by medical examination and evidence (!) (!) .
The court found the evidence of witnesses, including the injured and those present at the scene, to be credible and consistent, establishing the identity of the appellant as the assailant beyond all reasonable doubt (!) (!) .
The incident occurred during the night, in darkness, but the victim and witnesses were able to identify the appellant due to prior familiarity and conversation before the assault (!) (!) .
The appellant’s statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. acknowledged the occurrence but stated it happened in darkness, with the appellant being known to the victims beforehand, reinforcing their identification (!) .
The initial conviction was under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt, but on appeal, the conviction was modified to Section 324 IPC, reflecting that the injuries, while caused by a sharp weapon, did not meet the criteria for grievous hurt as defined by law (!) .
The court observed that the injuries, although serious, did not necessarily qualify as grievous hurt because they did not endanger life or cause severe bodily pain for twenty days, nor did they cause permanent disfigurement or impairment, based on the medical evidence (!) (!) .
The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default, to undergo additional imprisonment. Additionally, a fine of Rs.500 was imposed under Section 341 IPC, with the default penalty of imprisonment (!) (!) .
The fine amount, if collected, is to be paid to the injured victim, Jiten Harijan, under applicable legal provisions (!) .
The appeal was partly allowed, and the original conviction was modified accordingly, with directions for the payment of fines and the return of the lower court records (!) .
This summary encapsulates the legal reasoning, factual findings, and the final judgment as reflected in the document.
Heard Mr. K. Sarmah, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P. S. Lahkar, learned Addl. P.P. for State respondent.
2. Perused the case records.
3. This long pending appeal of 2010, under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment and order, dated 31.03.2010, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Biswanath Chariali, Sonitpur, Assam in Sessions Case No. 220/2008 (arising out of GR Case No. 276/2008), whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 (one) month under Section 341 IPC and also to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 ½ (two and a half) years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (five thousand only), in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 60 (sixty) days, under Section 326 IPC.
4. The appellant’s case precisely is that one Uma Harijan, son of Late Harilal Harijan, a resident of Chandmari Bengali Gaon, under Helem Police Station, Sonitpur, lodged an FIR on 22.05.2008, with the Officer-in-Charge of the said Police Station alleging that on 21.05.2008, Wednesday at about 07:30 pm, while his nephew Jiten Harijan was going back home from Kauripathar Centre, after buying medicines, when he reached near the house of the appellant, Ganesh Jangre, the accused/appellant wrongfully restrained him and assaulted him by means of a “Khukuri” (a kind of sharp cutting weapon) causing multiple injuries on his person. As a result of assault, he sustained cut injuries on neck, head and on left hand fingers. Jiten was shifted to Tezpur Civil Hospital for treatment.
5. Based on the above FIR, Helem P. S. Case No. 16/2008 under Section 341/326/307 IPC, dated 22.05.2008, was registered and the Officer-in-Charge, ASI Kumud Ch. Shrmah himself took up the investigation in the case. In course of investigation, the I/O visited the place of occurrence, seized the weapon of offence one “Khukuri”, arrested the accused, collected the injury report and on completion of investigation, submitted the charge-sheet under Sections 341/326/307 IPC.
6. The offence under Section 307 IPC being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Judge, the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate(M), Biswanath Chariali, committed the case to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur at Tezpur. Thereafter, Sessions Case No. 220/08 was registered. On consideration of the materials on record and hearing the learned counsel of both sides, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biswanath Chariali framed the charges under Sections 341/326/307 I.P.C. The appellant pleaded innocence vide order, dated 03.01.2009. In order to prove the charges the prosecution examined as many as 9(nine) witnesses including the doctor and the I/O. The defence cross-examined them at length. After completion of evidence of the prosecution side, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. vide the order, dated 19.03.2010. The appellant pleaded innocence and declined to examine any witness in defence. Then, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution side and hearing the learned counsel of both sides convicted the appellant under Section 341/326 IPC, and sentenced as stated above.
7. Section 339 IPC defines what is ‘wrongful restraint’. If the accused voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has right to proceed, he is said to have wrongfully restrained that person. To speak it differently, the expression ‘wrongful restraint’ means keeping a person out of place, where he desires to be or wishes to move out. The person causing such restraint or obstruction is liable to be prosecuted under Section 341 IPC. On the other hand, Section 320 IPC specifies certain categories of ‘hurt’, defined in Section 319 IPC, as grievous, when such hurt falls within one of the eight clauses designated therein. Such grievous hurt if caused by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting or any
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
