Back
2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1835
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rajesh Kumar, J.
Jairam Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 260 of 2006
Decided On : 05-12-2019
Pankaj Verma, Advocate, Laxmi Murmu, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the application of relevant case law to determine the appellants' culpability.
Headnote:
Section 307 - Indian Penal Code - [Sections 324, 307, 27 of the Indian Penal Code and Arms Act] - The court discussed the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and referenced the case of Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, (2017) 9 SCC 362 to establish that the appellants did not meet the requirements for conviction under Section 307. The court found that the injury was not sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and that a compromise had taken place between the parties. The court discharged the appellants from the charge of Section 307 and convicted them under Section 324 due to sufficient evidence of causing injury.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for offences under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The case involved a land dispute between the parties, resulting in a scuffle and injuries to several individuals.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code were not established and discharged the appellants from that charge. However, they were convicted under Section 324 due to sufficient evidence of causing injury. The court also reduced the sentence to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine amount.
Issues: The issues raised included the wrongful conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and the possibility of reducing the sentence due to a compromise between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the case of Shyam Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr, (2017) 9 SCC 362 to establish the requirements for conviction under Section 307 and found that the appellants did not meet those requirements.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction and order of sentence were modified, discharging the appellants from the liability of their bail bonds and reducing the sentence to the period already undergone.
JUDGMENT
Rajesh Kumar, J. - Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.02.2006 passed by Sri Vishnu Kant Sahay, 4th Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj in Sessions Trial No. 482 of 1993 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted for the offences under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo R. I. for three years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- each for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default thereof, S.I. for six months. Appellant no. 3 was charged under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but he has been acquitted from the said charge.
3. The informant, Shaymdeo Chaudhary, has lodged an FIR on 04.07.1991 making allegation that while he was cultivating his land, these appellants came armed with Garasa and assaulted him and five other family members. During scuffle, Ram Prasad Chaudhary reached the place of occurrence with barchha and pistol. The pistol was handed over to Bishnudeo Chaudhary. Bishnudeo Chaudhary has fired the pistol, which caused injury in the leg of Yogendra Chaudhary. The cause of dispute was inter se land dispute.
4. On the basis of statement of the informant, Bishrampur P. S. Case No. 133 of 1991 was registered under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused persons and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against all these accused persons and under Section 27 of the Arms Act against Bishnudeo Chaudhary to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Trial has been conducted and all the appellants have been convicted under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act has not been proved.
5. On conclusion of the prosecution case, statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. was recorded, in which they pleaded not guilty.
6. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed.
7. The issue raised before this Court that the appellants have wrongly been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code as ingredients of Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code have not been proved. Further, a compromise has taken place between the parties and as such, sentence can be reduced to the period already undergone.
8. To substantiate the charges, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. P. W. 1, Shyamdeo Chaudhary is the informant and the injured witness, who has supported the FIR. It has been admitted that there is a land dispute between the parties. There is a case and counter case between the parties with regard to the same incident. The appellants have also lodged an FIR, which has been registered as Bishrampur P. S. Case No. 134 of 1991. There is a land dispute between the parties for which various litigation are going on. P. W. 2- Ramji Chaudhary, P. W. 3-Jaiprakash Chaudhary, P. W. 4-Bijay Chaudhary are the eye witnesses, who were present at the place of occurrence, but they have not sustained injury. All the witnesses have supported the incident. P. W. 5, Rajdeo Chaudhary is another injured witness, who has supported the prosecution story and nothing has been extracted in the cross-examination to disbelieve regarding free fighting between the parties. One of the injured witness namely Yogendra Chaudhary whose injury has been marked as Ext. 2, has died during trial and as such he has not been examined. P. W. 6- Santu Chaudhary and P. W. 7-Ram Chandra Chaudhary have not seen the fight between the parties, but they are witness of their presence at the place of occurrence. P. W. 8, is Dr. Shyam Bihari Mahto, who has treated the injured persons namely Yogendra Chaudhary
