IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that insufficient evidence existed to support a conviction for attempted murder, while affirming convictions for lesser offences based on corroborated witness testimony.

JUDGMENT :

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.

Heard the parties.

1. Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals arise out of the Judgment of conviction dated 29.11.2012 and order of sentence dated 30.11.2012, passed by learned District and Addl. Sessions Judge-1, Jamtara in Sessions Trial No.69 of 2009 (Jamtara P.S. Case No.217 of 2008) and, therefore, they have been heard together and shall be disposed of by the common Judgment.

2. Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and further to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for offence under Section 307 IPC and in default, to undergo imprisonment for six months. They have also been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for four years and fine of Rs.5000/- each under Section 452 IPC. Appellant Bhirgu Mahato was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 379 IPC. Appellants were also convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 504 of Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence regarding these offences were passed against them.

3. As per the prosecution case, the incidence took place at 7:30 PM on 08.09.2008 when the appellants/accused persons entered into his house and conjointly assaulted him. The genesis of the incidence is that the informant had earlier lodged a case against the accused persons, in which they had been arrested and sent to jail. Balram and Bhrigu physically assaulted the informant, whereas Rajesh attacked him with a knife. The informant sustained injury in his hand by knife and accused, Bhirgu Mahato took away the purse of the informant. When the mother of the informant came to his rescue, she was also assaulted. On hulla, Gandhu Mahato, Govind Mahato, Sudhir Mahato and others came there, the accused persons fled away.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid 'fardbeyan' of informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Jamtara P.S. Case No.217 of 2008 corresponding to G.R. No.491 of 2008 under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452, 307, 379, 504, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants/ accused were put on trial under Sections 341, 323, 324, 452, 307, 379, 504, 307/ 34 IPC.

5. The prosecution has examined altogether 14 witnesses, and relevant documents including the injury reports were adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits.

6. Judgment of conviction and order of sentence is assailed on the ground that the ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence. The injuries are superficial in nature which will not make out an offence under Section 307 IPC, for which criminal intent to cause death is the necessary ingredients. As per the case of prosecution, there were three assailants and one of them was armed with knife. Had they such an intention, nothing would have prevented them to cause death or cause such bodily injury which was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.

7. It is further submitted that except for the injured, all other witnesses are hearsay. Two witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Indisputably there was land dispute, which was the sole motive for false implication. It is submitted that the Doctor has found abrasion which rules out any infliction of knife regarding cut injury on the person of the informant.

8. On the point of sentence, it is submitted that there is no past conviction against these appellants. At the time of judgment of conviction, the age of the appellants Balram Mahto, and Rajesh Mahto was 52 years and 34 years respectively in the year 2012. There is no criminal history and the matter involves the land dispute.

9. Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It is submitted that Umakant Mahato, informant of the case has been examined as P.W.10 who was injured in the incidence and there is no reason that he will exonerate the real assailant and falsely implicate the present appellants. It is argued that altogether 14 witnesses and relevant documents, including the injury