The court ruled that insufficient evidence of grievous injury precludes conviction under Section 307 IPC, while lesser charges were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

These appeals have been filed by the appellants of both these appeals above named against the Judgment of Conviction dated 18.12.2015 and order of sentence dated 21.12.2015 passed in S.T. No. 56 of 2013, arising out of Pakur (Muffassil) P.S. Case No.160 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. Case No.464 of 2012 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur, by which the appellants have been convicted under Sections 341, 323, 324/34, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one month under Section 341 of IPC, imprisonment for 01 year under Section 323 of IPC, imprisonment for 03 years under Section 324 of IPC and imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.5,000/- under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, they have been further directed to undergo for one month imprisonment and it was further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is based on the written report of informant namely, Samaul Sk., in which it has been alleged that the accused persons were taking coal from the coal vendor on the road. In the meantime, Sabdul Sk., the brother of the informant protested that the coal vendor is a poor man, so they should not take coal from him. Thereafter, the accused persons started abusing him and accused Badrul Sk. inflicted a blow of Chheni (sharp cutting instrument) upon the brother of the informant. Thereafter, Azad Sk. came with Bhujali and inflicted a blow upon the chest of the brother of the informant; as a result, he sustained injury. The other accused persons assaulted him with fists and slaps.

3. On the basis of written report of informant Md. Samaul Sk., Pakur (Muffassil) P.S. Case No.160 of 2012 dated 07.06.2012 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 504/34 IPC and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused persons under the aforesaid sections and this case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the learned Additional Sessions Judge awarded the sentence to the appellants as aforesaid against which, these appeals have been filed by the appellants.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants at the outset submitted that this is a case, in which the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code is not at all made out against all the appellants and utmost, the offence under Section 324 of Indian Penal Code is made out against two of the appellants i.e. Azad Sk. and Badrul Sk. and against the rest of the appellants, only offence under section 323 of IPC may be made and therefore, learned counsel submitted that in such circumstances, based upon the evidences, the conviction may be sustained against the submitted sections and the period already undergone by the appellants in the said sections may be considered as sentence sufficiently served to the period already undergone by the appellants.

5. Buttress of arguments, she has further submitted that the injured is PW-7, since he is injured and therefore he said to be the witness and there is no other eyewitness to the occurrence. She has further submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 are the brothers of the injured informant and they have vested interest in supporting the case of the brother and therefore, they are interested witnesses. Further learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence itself, it seems that they are not the eyewitnesses to the incident and she pointed out from paragraph-6 of PW-1 and submitted that it is apparent that he arrived after the incident and therefore, he is not the eyewitness to the occurrence. She has further stated that PW-2 is also not the eyewitness because she said that even though, he claims that he was present at the place of occurrence, but PW-2 has not intervened to save his brother, which would be a natural reaction and therefore, she submitted that PW-2 is also not the eyewitness.

6. Apart from this, she has stated that the child, from whom the coal was being looted, has not been