High Court
Case Details
1 Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 769 of 2012 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.06.2012 and order of sentence dated 14.06.2012 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2010] Harish Chandra Mahto --Versus-- The State of Jharkhand .... .... …. Appellant …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P. ----- PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY By Court 1. Judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is under challenge in the instant criminal appeal. 2. As per the fardbeyan of Santosh Mahto recorded on 21.04.2010 at 4.30 a.m. at Public Health Centre, Manoharpur, he was Driver by occupation and had come to Manoharpur Bazar on 20.04.2010. In the meantime, at 7 p.m., the appellant-Harish Chandra Mahto met him and invited him to come to his house at Village Kudarsai and requested him to go in the morning. When he proceeded towards his village on motorcycle, on the way, he was asked to stay over culvert where he returned with Farsa and started inflicting indiscriminate Farsa blows, as a result he sustained critical injuries and became senseless. On Hulla being raised, the people gathered and he was rescued. On the basis of fardbeyan, Manoharpur P.S. Case No.13/2010 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code against Harish Chandra Mahto. The police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet. After cognizance, he was put on trial under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Altogether seven witnesses were examined. Out of them, four witnesses turned hostile. Apart from this, injury report and relevant documents were proved. Statement of the accused has been recorded. The defence of the accused is of innocence and false implication. 4. It is argued by the learned amicus curiae that there is no independent witness to support the prosecution case. In order to prove the charge, under Section 307 of IPC prosecution need to establish that the accused had an intention to cause death, which failed in its object due to some external factor. As per the prosecution case, the injured was given Farsa blow in a desolate place, had he such an intention, he would have inflicted injuries on the vital part of the body to cause death. 5. Learned A.P.P. has defended the Judgment of conviction and sentence. 6. Informant of the case is injured himself who has been examined as P.W.-3. His statement was recorded in the Primary Health Centre in an injured condition on 2 20.04.2010 and the Doctor (P.W. 5) examined him on 21.04.2010. Promptness in lodging the FIR and examination of the injured, lends credence to the prosecution story. It has been deposed by the injured that he was taken by the accused on a motorcycle and he was asked to wait near a Pulia in the night, where he came armed with Farsa with which he sustained sharp cut injuries which have been proved by the Doctor. On Hulla, villagers came there and he fled away. The testimony of the witness is corroborated by the injury report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1. Doctor found altogether four incised wounds, out of which those on the left side of neck and right forearm which is grievous in nature. It has been held in Abdul Sayeed Vs State of MP, 2010(4) East Cr. C. 150 SC that were a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable as he is a witness that comes with a built in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare the actual assailants in order to falsely implicate someone. Convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. I do not find any occasion to doubt the veracity of account of this witness and it can be based for recording a judgement of conviction. 7. An act will amount to an attempt to murder, if the act is such that if it is not prevented or intercepted, it would be sufficient to cause the death of the victim. To constitute the offence, it is not essential that injury need to be caused to the victim. If in the course of the attempt, bodily injury is caused, the accused would be liable to enhanced punishment. To sustain conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the intention to kill should be clearly proved by the circumstances like persistence of attack on vital part of the body. This Section clearly contemplates an act which is done with the intention of causing death, but, which fails to bring about the intended consequence on account of the intervention of a cause operating independently of the volition of the agent. Thus, the intention or knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder. 8. In the present case, the assailant inflicted injuries by Farsa at 10.30 in night. All the injuries, except the one inflicted at neck, were not on the vital part of the body. At the time and place where the victim was attacked, the accused could have caused death of the informant by the deadly weapon with which he was armed. Although, the informant has said that on Hulla, villagers had come to his rescue, but none have come forward to support his case. P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-4 and P.W.-7 have all turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. On these evidence, this Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove that, there was any requisite intention to cause death. However injury having been caused by deadly weapon is sufficient to prove the case under Section 326 of the IPC. 3 On the point of sentence, there is no past conviction proved against the Appellant. Further, the genesis of offence has also not come on record. Under the circumstance, considering the age and antecedent, a sentence of three years R.I and a fine of Rs.5000/- under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, shall meet the ends of justice. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant shall serve S.I of one month. The assistance given by Ms. Juhi Kumari, Amicus Curiae is appreciated and Member Secretary, JHALSA, is directed to pay admissible fees to the amicus curiae. Criminal appeal is dismissed with modification in conviction and sentence. Bail of the appellant stands cancelled. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, 7th March, 2024 NAFR/Anit