The court ruled that lack of intent to kill, evidenced by the nature of injuries, invalidated the conviction under Section 307, while maintaining convictions under Sections 323 and 324 with reduced sentences.

JUDGMENT :

Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging their conviction and sentence dated 20.01.2018/27.01.2018 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2006, arising out of Sonaraithari Sarwan P.S. Case No.84 of 2005 (G.R. Case No.508 of 2005) registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 307, 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. for ten years for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation, R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 147 of the I.P.C. and one year for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that on 03.07.2005 at about 6:00 AM, the informant was ploughing his field, meanwhile, present appellants namely, Ashin Ansari (since deceased), Jahangir Ansari, Bhutel Ansari, Karu Mian, Ishaque Mian and Alamgir armed with iron rod, farsa and lathi started assauling the informant on his head and also assaulted Rafique Mian on his head with intention to kill them. Jahangir Mian also threatened to kill them by shooting. It is further alleged that in the said occurrence, Yakub Mian was also assaulted by farsa blow on his head.

4. On the basis of above information, FIR was registered against the accused for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324, 307 of the I.P.C.

5. After completion of investigation, the Investigation Officer of the case has submitted charge sheet against six accused persons namely, Ashim Ansari, Jahangir Ansari, Bhutel Ansari, Karu Mian, Ishaque Mian and Alamgir Ansari for the offence under Section 147, 148, 149, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the I.P.C. After taking cognizance of offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. Case No. 25 of 2006 was registered and in due course, transfer to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar for trial and disposal. One Co-accused namely, Karu Mian was declared juvenile and his trial was splitted. The charges were framed against all the five accused persons for the offence under Sections 148/324/147, 323/149 and 307/147 of the I.P.C., which they denied, pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

It appears that in course of trial, one accused Ishaque Mian died. Hence, proceeding against him was dropped vide order dated 16.09.2013.

It further appears that co-accused Karu Mian, who was declared Juvenile, subsequently, he was acquitted in the court of learned Juvenile Justice Board, Deoghar in the year 2011.

6. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against rest accused persons, altogether six witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced.

Exhibit-1 : Signature of Munajir Ansari on fardbeyan.

Exhibit-2 : Signature on written report.

Exhibit-2/1 : Endorsement.

Exhibit-3 to 3/2 : Injury report of Nazir Mian, Matijan Bibi and Yakub Mian.

Exhibit-3/3 & 3/4 : Supplementary injury report of Matijan Bibi and Yakub Mian.

8. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.

9. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record, found the appellants not guilty for the offence under Sections 148, 149 and 324 of the I.P.C. and acquitted them from the said charges, but at the same time, the appellants were held guilty for the offence under Sections 307, 323 and 147 of the I.P.C. and sentenced as stated above.

10. It appears that during pendency of this appeal, appellant no. 2 namely, Ashin @ Ashin @ Ashim Ansari has died and to t