Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Malasri Nandi, J.
Mongal Singh @ Mangal Singh, S/o. Sri Krishnamoni Singh @ Khoitang – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl. A. No.88 Of 2011
Decided On : 19-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 341, 325, 307, 323, 320 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 313, 374 – Default stipulation – Voluntarily causing hurt – Criminal Appeal – Punishment for wrongful restraint – Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Attempt to murder – Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – Grievous hurt – This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. preferred by accused/appellant against judgment and order passed by ld. Sessions Judge, Sessions Case, whereby accused/appellant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine in default stipulation, under Section 323 IPC – Held, Court opinion that sentence imposed upon accused/appellant in instant case is somehow harsh as offence under Section 323 IPC is dealt with simple injury – Though victim sustained injuries on his head which is a vital part of the body but as per medical report, he sustained a cut injury caused by blunt object and ld – Trial court also held that injury caused by victim was simple in nature – It also appears from record that case was pending in court, trauma which accused/appellant was facing during , which cannot be ignored – It is submitted by learned counsel for accused/appellant that accused was in jail for more than one month – Trial Court regarding guilt of accused/appellant for offence under Section 323 IPC are based on correct appreciation of facts, evidence and law – There is no illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment and order – Minor contradictions found in the evidence of witnesses are not of such nature which may place PW3 and PW4, in the category of unreliable witnesses – Considering entire aspects of matter and looking to the circumstances, under which present offence has been committed, Court of view that some modifications are required on sentence, one year imprisonment is reduced to one month but sentence of fine will remain as same and period which he detained in custody shall be set off from period of imprisonment imposed on him – However, accused/appellant is directed to pay fine amount before trial court – Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel for the accused-appellant. Also heard Mr. P.S. Lahkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent.
2. This is an appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. preferred by the accused/appellant against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the ld. Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 63/2008, whereby the accused/appellant was convicted to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-in default stipulation, under Section 323 IPC.
3. The brief facts of the case is that on 22.10.2007, Md. Ahiya Ahmed lodged an FIR before the O/C, Ratabari police station stating interalia that accused/appellant Mongal Singh @ Mangal Singh used to commute by breaking the boundary fence of their premises and his younger brother used to resist him and out of grudge, on 20.10.2007 at about 6 p.m., the accused/appellant came to the river bank near the playground of Chamtilla village, where his younger brother Md. Ashik Ahmed was defecating and abused him by using filthy language and also the accused assaulted him with an iron rod causing injuries on his head and other parts of his body. Upon hearing scream raised by his younger brother, people rushed to the spot and saved him and he was taken to Govt. hospital for treatment. FIR was lodged accordingly.
4. On receipt of the FIR, a case was registered vide Ratabari P.S. Case No. 105/2007 under Sections 341/325 IPC and investigation was started. During investigation, the investigating officer visited the place of occurrence and recorded the statements of the witnesses as well as seized one iron rod and one piece of plastic chappal belonged to the accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Sections 341/325/307 IPC before the court of JMFC, Karimganj. As the offence under Section 307 IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed accordingly for trial.
5. During trial, the accused put his appearance before the court and charge was framed under Sections 341/325/307 IPC which was read over and explained to the accused/appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined seven witnesses and marked exhibits and material objects. On the other hand, the accused/appellant did not choose to adduce any evidence in support of his case. After completion of trial, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein incriminating materials found in the evidence of the witnesses put before him to which he denied the fact and further stated that he did not commit any offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case. After hearing both sides, the ld. Sessions Judge had convicted the accused/appellant as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
7. The ld. Counsel for the appellant has argued that the ld. Trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of witnesses. On careful perusal of the evidence of witnesses, it can be assumed that there was practically no eye witness to the incident and the conviction was based on purely conjecture and surmises and which is liable to be set aside.
8. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that although witnesses examined by the prosecution are from same family and therefore, interested witnesses. No independent witnesses were examined in this case which is fatal to the prosecution.
9. Alternative submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was convicted under Section 323 IPC which appears to be voluntarily causing hurt and moreover, in the offence like simple injury, fine may also be imposed which is permissible in law.
10. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following case laws-(i) Criminal Appeal No. 536/2021 (Surendran –vs-Sub-inspector of police) (ii) 2018 vol.1 GLT 50 (Chakrad
The prosecution failed to prove the charges of attempted murder and grievous hurt due to lack of evidence regarding intent and the nature of injuries.
The intent to commit murder must be proven beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, it was established that the act fell under grievous hurt.
Court emphasized that personal vendetta not motivated by caste does not support charges under SC & ST Act; conviction modified from grievous to simple injury under IPC based on nature of the injuries....
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; significant contradictions in witness testimony can invalidate a case leading to acquittal.
Eyewitness testimonies can substantiate convictions even amidst substantial trial delays, with the court having the discretion to modify sentences based on the age and circumstances of the accused.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt; inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.
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
