Back
2024 Supreme(Jhk) 656
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J., Navneet Kumar, J.
Raja Ansari, s/o late Azad Ansari - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 351 of 2014, Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 423 of 2014
Decided On : 08-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Md. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish the requisite intention for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, which was not proven, leading to a conviction under Section 325 IPC instead.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 307, 323, 326, and 325 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for attempt to murder and causing grievous hurt - The court found insufficient evidence to establish the intention required for conviction under Section 307, leading to a reduction in charges and sentencing under Section 325 instead. (Paras 12, 23, 24)
(B) Common intention - The principle of vicarious liability under Section 34 requires evidence of a shared intention among co-accused, which was not established for Bittu Ansari, leading to the setting aside of his conviction under Section 307. (Paras 12, 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for assaulting Bablu Ansari with a Bhujali, resulting in grievous injuries. The prosecution's case was based on testimonies of witnesses who were relatives of the victim. The trial court's reliance on certain witnesses was questioned due to their proximity to the victim.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 307 IPC against Raja Ansari, leading to a conviction under Section 325 IPC instead. Bittu Ansari's conviction under Section 307 was set aside, affirming his conviction under Section 323 IPC.
Issues: The main issues included the establishment of common intention and the requisite intention for the charge of attempt to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution must establish the requisite intention for a conviction under Section 307 IPC, which was not proven in this case. The distinction between grievous injury and attempted murder was emphasized.
Result: Appeals allowed in part.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
Raja Ansari in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.351 of 2014 and Bittu Ansari in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.423 of 2014 have challenged the judgment in Session Trial No.217 of 2013.
2. By the judgment dated 28th April 2014, the Sessions Judge, Dhanbad convicted and sentenced Raja Ansari to undergo RI for 10 years under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5,000/-.
3. Bittu Ansari who is the appellant in Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.423 of 2014 was convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The Sessions Judge has imposed punishment of SI of one year upon both the convicts in default of their paying the fine amount.
4. Raja Ansari and Bittu Ansari have also been convicted and sentenced to SI for six months under section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the evidence of PW3 Noorjahan Begam primarily on the ground that she deposed in the Court that the place of occurrence is about 1½ KM from her house. PW4-Asfaque Ansari is also not an eyewitness as he deposed that at the time of occurrence he was in his tailoring shop. However, the trial Judge believed the evidence tendered by PW2-Alim Khan, PW5-Shamim Hussain and PW6-Md. Bablu Ansari to arrive at the conclusion that Raja Ansari and Bittu Ansari are guilty of committing the offence under section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The Sessions Judge at Dhanbad has discussed the prosecution evidence in the following manner:
“16. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it appears that there is some doubt regarding the presence of Noorjhan Begam (P.W. 3) at the place of occurrence. She has stated that her house is about one and half kilometre from the place of occurrence. But she stated that she was present at the place of occurrence whereas Shamim Ansari, (P.W. 5) her son, at paragraph11 has stated that his mother was present at home at the time of occurrence, therefore, evidence of Noorjhan Begam (P.W. 3) cannot be relied upon. Asfaque Ansari (P.W. 4) is not an eye witness. He is hearsay witness but he stated that he reached at the place of occurrence on hearing hulla and saw the accused persons fleeing away. He also saw injury on his person of Babloo Ansari.
Md. Alim Khan (P.W. 2), Shamim Ansari (P.W. 5) and Md. Babloo Ansari (P.W. 6) all have supported the occurrence. There is no discrepancy in the statement regarding the time, place and manner of occurrence. Witnesses have stated that accused Raja Ansari inflicted three blows on the person of Babloo Ansari. The oral testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by the injury report (Ext. 6). The injuries has been found to be grievous in nature.
Kaisher Ahmad Khan (P.W. 7), I.O. has stated that the place of occurrence is about 25 feet of Imam Bara. The other witnesses have also stated that place of occurrence is near Imam Bara.
17. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the witnesses have remained constant in their occurrence. The oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses is corroborated by the documentary evidence. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses which discards their testimony.
As far as manner of occurrence is concerned, Raja Ansari has given three bhujali blow on the vital part of the body. They fled away after people of the locality assembled at the place of occurrence so there was intervening circumstance in this case failing which Raja Ansari would have committed murder or injured Babloo Ansari.
As far as accused Bittu Ansari is concerned, allegation against him is that he has assaulted the injured by fist after Raja Ansari has inflicted Babloo Ansari. Babloo Ansari has stated that he has stated Bittu Ansari had assaulted on the same place of the stomach where Raja Ansari has given Bhujali blow.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that prosecution
