High Court
Case Details
Crl.A. 57/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DR(MRS) JUSTICE INDIRA SHAH The appellant herein faced trial as accused for the charge framed against him u/ s 324/326/307 IPC in Sessions Case No. 1/2009 in the Court of Additional Sessio ns Judge(FTC), Karimganj. He was held guilty u/s 324/326 IPC. Accordingly he wa s convicted under the aforesaid section of law and sentenced to undergo rigoro us imprisonment for one year for his conviction u/s 324 IPC and rigorous impriso nment for two years with fine of Rs.500/- in default, further rigorous imprisonm ent for one month for the offence committed by him under Section 326 IPC. Heard Mr.SC Biswas, learned counsel and Ms.P.Bhattacharyya, learned Ami 2. cus Curiae for the appellant. Also heard Mr BJ Dutta, learned Addl.P.P. for the State respondent. 3.
Legal Reasoning
The house of the accused and the victim is partioned by a common wall . There was a dispute between the accused and the victim with regard to the said partioned bamboo wall. The prosecution story is that on 23.12.2005 the accused Baldev Singh started rebuking in slang language the victim Bikramjit (PW 10) and his family members and Bikramjit was assaulted by the accused by means of a sword. When his father Bua Singh (PW 1) came in rescue, he was also assaulted by the accused by means of the same sword. The victims were taken to Karimganj Ci vil Hospital for treatment wherefrom PW 1 was referred to Silchar Medical Colleg e and Hospital. The wife of Bua Singh, namely, Maya Singh lodged the FIR on 24.1 2.2005 and on the basis of her FIR, Karimganj P.S. Case No. 511/2005 u/s 341/32 6 IPC was registered. On completion of investigation, police submitted the charg e-sheet under Section 341/326 IPC. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate found t hat there was prima-facie materials u/s 307 IPC, which is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions , committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Ka rimganj. 4. During the trial the charges u/s 324/326/307 IPC were framed against the accused person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried . 5.
Legal Reasoning
Altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The accused in his statement recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegation that he had cause d injury to the victims. The defence plea, as it was gathered from the cross-exa mination of the prosecution witnesses, was that it was the victim Bikramjit wh o attempted to assault the accused by means of a sword and the accused in exerci se of his right of private defence caught hold of the sword and in doing so , th e victim sustained injury . However no defence evidence was adduced. 6. PW 1 and PW 10 are the victims . It is in the evidence of PW 1 that on the day of occurrence at around 1 AM he woke up from sleep hearing someone rebuk ing and threatening to kill him and his family members. He then went to the room of his son Bikramjit and found his son had gone out of the room. When he came out of the room he saw Bikramjit lying at the veranda . He also saw the accused Baldev Singh about to assault on Bikramjit by means of a sword. When he tried to rescue his son , he was also assaulted by the accused by means of the sword. He sustained injury in his neck and he fell down. Hearing the hue and cry, peop le gathered there and the accused fled away. He was shifted to Civil Hospital fo r treatment and thereafter he was shifted to Silchar Medical College and Hospita l where he had under gone treatment for seven days. 7. PW 10 Bikramjit Singh has deposed that at around 1 AM he heard sound on the door. He also heard someone rebuking in slang language . He then opened th e door and came out .Then the accused inflicted sword blow on the left side of his head and neck causing injury. Immediately his father who came to rescue him was also assaulted by the accused in his throat. Thereafter, neighbourers came to the place of occurrence and shifted them to Karimganj Civil Hospital. His father was referred to Silchar Medical College and Hospital for better treat ment. He further deposed that the accused had threatened them to kill. It transp ires from his evidence that the accused is uncle of the victim in relation and t here is a common wall in between their house. He denied the defence version that when the accused charged them for shifting the common boundary wall of their ho use then he and his father assaulted the accused and then the accused in order t o save himself caught hold the sword and during the scuffle both the parties sus tained injuries. Corroborating the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, Maya Singh deposed in the same manner. However PW 1 in his cross-examination had stated that his wife Maya Singh did n ot come out of fear. PW 3 Satnam Singh deposed that hearing hue and cry he came out of his ho 8. use and saw both the parties in injured condition. Similarly, PW 4 Sonu Horizon ,PW 6 Chanda Mallik and PW 7 Babu Horizon came later. According to PW 4, Bua Si ngh told that they were assaulted by the accused. PW 6 and 7 saw the accused was arrested by the police. 9. PW 5,Dr.KP Sinha examined Bua Singh on 24.12.2005 and found one sharp c ut injury over the left lower 1/3rd of the neck cutting skin muscle of the nec k and vessels size 6 (cid:29) x 1 (cid:29) x2 (cid:29). There was active bleeding. According to him the injury was fresh and caused by sharp object. He also examined Bikramjit Singh a nd found one sharp cut injury over the left side of the scalp size of 6 ‰ (cid:28) x ‰ (cid:28) bone depth with active excessive bleeding extending from one lateral of left eye brow toward back ward just above the upper part. The aforesaid injury was a lso caused by sharp object. Bua Singh was also examined at Silchar Medical Coll ege & Hospital by Dr. Mrs.S.Dutta , (PW 8). She found one sharp cut injury on th e left lower 11/3rd of the neck skin, muscles exposed on exploration, size of wo und 6 (cid:29) x 1 (cid:29) x2 (cid:29). In the opinion of the doctor (PW 8) injury was grievous in nature and wa s caused by sharp weapon. The doctor also stated that the said injury could have endangered the life. PW 9,S.I. Sri N.S. Saikia investigated the case. According to him the pa 10. trolling police team caught hold the accused from the place of occurrence and br ought him to Karimganj Police Station. Accordingly G.D.Entry was made and he was entrusted with the task of preliminary investigation. He also stated that the v ictims were shifted to Karimganj Civil Hospital by the patrolling team. At the hospital he recorded the statement of the injured person. Bua Singh was referred to Silchar Medical College & Hospital for better treatment. Formal FIR was lodg ed on 24.12.2005 by Maya Singh wife of injured Bua Singh and a case was register ed. 11. From the evidence adduced by PW 5 and 8, the doctor, it appears that PW 1 and PW 10 sustained injury on vital part of their body. The victim Bua Singh s ustained injury in his neck and thereafter he was referred to Silchar Medical C ollege & Hospital. PW 8 has categorically admitted that the said injury could h ave endangered the life. From the evidence of PW 1 ,2 and 10 the prosecution co uld establish that it was the accused who inflicted the injury on the victims. Other witnesses have also corroborated the evidence of PW 1,2 and 10 to the exte nt that there was previous dispute between the parties and that they had seen t he victims in injured condition. From the cross examination of witnesses it has been further established that there was quarrel between the accused and victim a nd in the course of scuffling the victim sustained injury by means of sword. Def ence plea that the accused in exercise of his right of private defence inflicted injuries on the victims or during scuffle, the victims sustained injury was nei ther admitted by the prosecution witnesses nor proved by adducing any defence ev idence. 12. This Court finds that conviction of the accused under Section 324/326 ne eds no interference. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant th at the victims and the accused are members of same family. Moreover there is no material to show that the accused was earlier convicted in any case. He has face d trial since 2009 for the incident which occurred in the year 2005. He has alre ady suffered imprisonment for more than 1 year. Considering all the period of se ntence from two years is hereby reduced to the period already undergone. However , the appellant/accused shall pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default another R.I.fo r two months . 13.
Decision
With this modification, this appeal is disposed of. 14. able assistance rendered to the Court. Let the learned Amicus Curiae be paid a sum of Rs.5,000/- for his valu 15. Return the LCR.