IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the nature of injuries and the context of the offense are critical in determining the severity of the sentence under the IPC, emphasizing the importance of considering the circumstances surrounding the case.

JUDGMENT :

Navneet Kumar, J.

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th April, 2017, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-XIII, Dhanbad, in S.T. No. 127/2013, arising out of Govindpur (Barwadda) P.S. Case No.421/2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3780/2012 and T.R. No.649/2013, whereby and whereunder, the appellants has been convicted for the offence punishable under sections 323/34, 307/34 and 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence punishable under section 323 of IPC, R.I. for one year for offence punishable under section 504 of IPC and R.I. for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/-each for offence punishable under section 307 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, further directed to undergo R.I. for 6 months and further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution arose in the wake of written report of the informant Madhav Mishra addressed to the Officer-in-charge, Barwadda P.S. wherein the informant had stated that on 18.9.2012 at about 1.30 P.M., while he along with his wife and two sons were erecting the boundary wall over his plot of land measuring 3.25 kathas, then the accused persons came and asked them to stop the work and it is alleged that they abused them and demanded Rs.5 lacs as Rangdari. When the informant expressed his inability to pay such a huge amount, at the instance of Nandu Hazra, Santosh Hazra assaulted the informant on his head with Gaita, due to which he sustained injuries on his head and fell down. When his wife and children tried to save him, other accused persons namely Doctor Hazra and Baski Hazra assaulted them with rod, due to which they also sustained bleeding injury. Thereafter, it is alleged that the accused persons took away Rs.20,000/-from the pocket of the informant and one mobile. The informant was taken to police station, from where he was sent for treatment to PMCH Hospital.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid written report of the informant Madhav Mishra-PW-4, a formal FIR was drawn vide Govindpur P.S. Case No.421 of 2012 dated 18.09.2012 registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307,386 504 and 34 of IPC and the investigation of the case commenced.

4. After investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted by the I.O. for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 386, 504 and 34 of IPC and after taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Dhanbad had framed the charge against all the charge-sheeted accused appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 307/34, 386/34 & 504/34 on 25.04.2013 and the trial of the case commenced and the learned trial court after conducting the full-fledged trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7th April, 2017, which is under challenge vide Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.764 of 2017.

5. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants

6. At the outset, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that all the appellants do not want to argue this case on merit of Judgment of conviction and therefore, the argument is confined only on the point of sentence.

7. It is submitted that although the learned trial court framed the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 324/34, 307/34, 386/34, 504/34 of IPC, but the appellants were convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 323/34, 307/34 and 504 /34 of the IPC and they were acquitted under Sections 341/34, 324/34, 386/34 of IPC and further they were sentenced to undergo six months R.I. under Section 323 of IPC, one year R.I. under Section 504 of IPC and seven years R.I. under Section 307 of IPC and further each of th