An appellate court may modify a conviction for grave offences to one for a lesser offence when the prosecution fails to establish essential statutory elements, such as specific intent or the actus reus of arson, and medical evidence confirms only simple injuries consistent with a minor altercation.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 10.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 11.04.2018, passed by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge – II, F.T.C., Bokaro, in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2017, arising out of Chandankiyari P.S. Case No.127 of 2016 (G.R. No.1415 of 2016), whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 341/ 342/ 324/ 307/ 435 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.10,000/- (Ten thousand) and in default of fine, further imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 307 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) with default clause for the offence under Sections 324/ 435 IPC, one month imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC and for the offence under Section 342 IPC he has been sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution story, in short, is based on the written application of the informant namely, Pushpa Devi, alleging therein that on 12.10.2016 at 5:00 P.M her husband, Anup Goshwami with intention to kill her, her father and her son attacked with dagger (chaku) which caused injury. She further stated that the said accused has also inflicted stab injury or her father and son. It is further alleged that the accused has also set all the injured on fire after locking them in a room. In the meanwhile, the mother of informant came there and raised alarm. Thereafter, the villagers and neighbours came there and unlocked the room and all the injured persons were saved. Due to fire, some household article valued at Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- were burnt. The reason of the occurrence is that the informant earlier filed a case for cruelty against her husband. In that case, he was remained in custody. Thereafter, on the verge of compromise she started living with the husband, but he committed the said offence. On the basis of above information of the informant, Chandankiyari (Barmasia O.P) P.S Case No. 127 of 2016 corresponding to G.R No.1415/2016 has been registered under Sections 341/ 342/ 323/ 326/ 324/ 307/ 436 IPC against the accused-appellant and the police, after completing the investigation, has submitted the charge-sheet and the trial court has framed the charge under Sections 341, 342, 324, 307, 435, 436 IPC against the present appellant. Thereafter, the case has been committed to the court of Sessions to which the appellant has pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried and accordingly, the trial has commenced.

4. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether 07 witnesses and their depositions, in short, are as follows:-

5. P.W.-1, Sudhir Goswami, is the father of the informant and one of the injured witnesses. He has stated the prosecution story in his main examination. In cross-examination, he has admitted that 40 to 50 persons have assembled at the place of occurrence, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution story. He has further stated that he had gone to the police station and thereafter, he had gone to the hospital and returned from there after getting treated.

6. P.W.-2, Kumud Mahto, is an independent witness. He has stated the prosecution story in his main examination. In cross-exami