Back
2018 Supreme(Jhk) 350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
Gurucharan Mukhi S/o Late Raibu Mukhi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 736 of 2003
Decided On : 22-06-2018
For the Appellants : M/s. Manoj Tandon, Abhinesh Kumar.
For the Respondent: Mr. Awnish Shankar.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of sufficient evidence to prove the intention for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the necessity to establish the elements of the charged offences.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Criminal Appeal - Sections 307, 27 of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act - [307, 27] - The court discussed the evidence and arguments related to the intention to kill, the nature of injuries, and the recovery of the firearm. The court found that the injuries did not demonstrate the intention for Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the prosecution failed to prove the case under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act for firing a pistol and causing injuries to the victim during a scuffle at the victim's house.
Finding of the Court:
The court found inconsistencies in the evidence, particularly regarding the nature of injuries and the recovery of the firearm. It concluded that the injuries did not demonstrate the intention for Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the case under Section 27 of the Arms Act was not proved. The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the intention to kill, the nature of injuries, the reliability of witnesses, and the recovery of the firearm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the intention for Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the failure to establish the case under Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Sections 307 and 27 were set aside, and the appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three months of simple imprisonment.
RATNAKER BHENGRA, J.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7.5.2003, passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Seraikella in S.T. No. 356 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, the learned court-below convicted the appellant under Sections 307 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced the appellant to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case as per fardbeyan (Ext.4) of PW-3, Budheshwar Mukhi is that on 20.05.1995 at about 6.00 p.m. his brother Atang Mukhi, PW-2, was at his house along with other family members. In the meantime, the accused Gurucharan Mukhi, who is his brother-in-law, came there. His brother Atang Mukhi said to the accused why he had come there as he had already quarreled with him in the Company. Then the accused threatened to kill him and then accused started quarreling with his brother Atang. Scuffle took place and then the accused took out the pistol from his waist and fired on the victim Atang causing injuries to him. He took his brother for treatment to TMH where he was operated.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, PW-3, Budheshwar Mukhi, Adityapur P.S. Case No. 88/95 was registered under Sections 341/323/448/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions.
4. Charges were framed under Sections 341/448/307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, which was denied by the accused-appellant and he claimed to be tried. Trial was held and after the conclusion of the trial, the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.
5. The prosecution examined altogether five witnesses. These witnesses are PW-1 Dr. Amitabh Chandra Jha; PW-2 is injured Atang Mukhi; PW-3, Budheshwar Mukhi, the informant; PW-4, Shyamal Mukhi and PW-5, Ahmad Hussian a formal witness.
6. PW-3, Budheshwar Mukhi, who is informant, said that on the day of occurrence accused came to his house. Quarrel and scuffle started between accused and Atang. In the meantime, accused took out a pistol from his waist and fired on Atang which hit on his left hand. Atang fell down due to injury and accused fled away. Injured Atang was taken to TMH for treatment. He has proved his signature on fardbeyan marked as Ext.2. In cross-examination, he said that he could not get time to catch the accused as the scuffling and gun fire took place suddenly.
7. PW-2, Atang Mukhi, is the injured eye witness. He deposed that on the day of occurrence the accused started abusing him and then took out pistol from his waist and fired on his left hand. He had also shown the pillate injury in the Court. He further said that he was then brought to TMH for treatment. In cross-examination, he had said that the accused tried to push him down in the scuffling. He also said plenty of blood oozed out from the injury.
8. PW-4 Shyamal Mukhi is not a witness to the shooting and injury, but, he was at the place of the occurrence prior to the shooting. He had seen the earlier quarrel between accused and victim and had reached at spot again after hearing the shot and had seen the injury of victim. In cross-examination he said that incident took place in the house of his courtyard. At para-13, he said when accused took out pistol, he was frightened and ran away.
9. PW-1 Dr. Amitabh Chandra Jha examined injured Atang Mukhi on 20.05.1995 at 7.00 p.m. He found a punctured wound with charring on left shoulder in the front having a diametre of one inch. He said that this was a wound of entry. He said about bullet like structure beneath ski
