The court established that conviction under Section 307 IPC requires clear evidence of intent to kill, which was not proven, leading to the conviction being overturned.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

Both the appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.08.2006 passed in Sessions Case No. 232 of 1999 and Sessions Trial No. 54 of 2002 arising out of Barharwa P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge- I, Rajmahal whereby and where under the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 342/34,323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- each u/s 307/34 IPC ; R.I. for 2 years u/s 325/34 IPC ; R.I. for 6 months u/s 342/34 IPC and R.I. for 6 months u/s 323/34 IPC and in default of payment of fine they were further directed to undergo R.I. 3 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.8)- Seema Choudhary, whose statement was recorded by the A.S.I. Kapil Deo Prasad of Raj Mahal P.S. on 05.10.1998 at 9.30 hrs.at Referral Hospital, Rajmahal, which is as under:

On 03.10.1998 at about 5.00 P.M. four accused persons namely Dilip Kumar Chowdhary, Rajesh Kumar Chowdhary, Shyam Sunder Chowdhary and Laxmi Narayan Chowdhary (died during course of trial) entered into the room of the informant and asked her to bring Rs.10,000/- from her uncle Prabhu Dayal, failing which, she would be killed. When she answered that she was not in a position to bring money the accused persons started abusing her. The accused Rajesh Chowdhary happens to be her brother-in-law (Dewar) and Shyam Chowdhary is brother-in-law (cousin Bhaisur) and Dilip Chowdhary happens to be her uncle-in-law. The informant objected to the abusing. Thereafter the accused Dilip Chowdhary @Dipu Chowdhary assaulted with iron rod upon her head with intention to kill her. He also assaulted her on her arm. Consequently, she sustained injury and fell down. Thereafter the other accused persons assaulted her with legs and fists and they also took away a gold chain weighing two tolas. Thereafter the accused persons went away and bolted the door from outside and they told "let her be dead". On 4.10.98 at about 9.00 P.M. her brother Kishor Jain came from Rajmahal and opened the door and took her to Rajmahal for treatment. Rajmahal police recorded her fardbeyan.

3. On the basis of her fardbeyan FIR has been lodged on 05.10.1998 under sections 341, 342, 323, 307, 448, 379 IPC . The police took up investigation and submitted charge sheet u/s 341, 342, 323, 324, 307, 379 and 448 I.P.C. against the appellants. The learned A.C.J.M., Rajmahal took cognizance of the offences accordingly and lastly the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Rajmahal had framed charge under section 342/34, 323/34, 325/34 and 307/34 of IPC on 05 July 2002 against the accused appellants.

4. The defence in short is total denial of occurrence and false implication out of previous enmity and litigation

5. The charges were read over and explained to the accused / appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. The learned court below after conducting the full-fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for the State.

Arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants:

8. Learned defence counsel has submitted that P.W.1, who is the mother-in-law of the informant and P.W.10, relative of the informant and projected as eye witness by the prosecution, have not supported the entire prosecution story. P.W.8- informant herself has contradicted her own statement during the trial but the learned trial court has failed to consider about her after thought story. P.W.9, husband of the informant has also recorded false statement before the trial but the learned trial court did not consider the same. Learned counsel for the appellant