High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 339 of 2002 1. Bijay Singh 2. Awadesh Singh 3. Umesh Singh All Sons of Late Harihar Singh, R/o Village Sukulkhapiya, PS Barkagaon, District Hazaribag … -Versus- … The State of Jharkhand … … Appellants Respondent
Facts
(Arising out of Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence both dated 15.06.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-VII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1996) For the Appellants For the Respondent ----
Legal Reasoning
9. Thus, from the evidence of both the doctors, we find that there was no injury on the vital part of the body. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi and iron rod. Though there is an allegation that spear was used but the doctor did not find any perforated injury on the body of the deceased, nor the postmortem report 2 suggests presence of any perpetrated injury on the body of the deceased. Other witnesses stated on the similar line that the deceased was assaulted by these appellants with sticks on his leg and hand. 10. These oral evidences coupled with the medical evidence clearly suggest that there is no injury on the vital part of the body, from which it can be inferred that there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased. 11. Further it is admitted that there was land disputed between the parties and it is these appellants who were ploughing the fields and deceased when stopped them it resulted in the altercation. 12. From the evidence and the medical report, we find that this case comes within Section 326 of IPC. Thus, the appellants could not have been convicted under Section 302 of IPC, rather their conviction can be sustained only under Section 326/34 of IPC, as the nature of injuries cannot be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course nature to cause death. A sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone under Section 326 shall meet the ends of justice. Since the appellants are already on bail, the sureties are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. This criminal appeal stands partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in sentence.
Arguments
: Ms. Roop Kamal, Amicus Curiae : Mr. S.K. Srivastava, A.P.P. ---- PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ---- J U D G M E N T Dated : 21.10.2024 By Court: Heard the parties. 1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction and Order of Sentence both dated 15.06.2002 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge- VII, Hazaribag in Sessions Trial No. 98 of 1996, whereby the appellants have been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each under Section Sections 302/34 of IPC. 2. Ms. Roop Kamal, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that admittedly there was a land dispute between the parties and at the hit of moment the incident had occurred. She further submits that from the injury mentioned in the postmortem report, it is clear that there is no injury on the vital part of the body. Thus, it can safely be conferred that there was no intention of the appellants in committing murder of the deceased. Thus, conviction under Section 302 of IPC is absolutely bad. 3. Learned counsel for the State has defended the judgment of conviction. It is submitted that there are direct eye witnesses to the occurrence and the F.I.R is the dying declaration of the deceased and the deceased died on the very next date of lodging the F.I.R. Appellants were ploughing the field when the informant (deceased) 1 went and stopped them. The appellants thereafter started assaulting the deceased indiscriminately, resulting in his death. 4. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the judgment, documents and exhibits. The fardbeyan is based on the statement of the deceased. He stated that when he was in his house, he saw these appellants ploughing the field. As the field belonged to him, he went to the place of occurrence and forbade the appellants from ploughing the field. The appellants being enraged, assaulted him on his legs resulting in fracture of his legs, on the elbow and on the chest by hard and blunt substance by sticks and spear. 5. On the fardbeyan, Barkagaon P.S. Case No. 41 of 1995 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325 and 504/34 of Indian Penal Code. Be noted that on the very next date the informant died. The FI.R was initially registered under Sections 341, 447, 323, 324, 325, 504 and 34 of the I.P.C and after the death of the informant Section 302 of IPC was added. Police after investigation filed charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and they were put on trial. 6. Accused was put on trial and the prosecution, in order to prove the case has examined 11 witnesses and relevant documents adduced into evidence. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. Defence is of innocence. 7. Trial Court found the appellants to be guilty for offence Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence under Sections 302/34 of IPC. 8. P.W.-3 is the Medical Officer, who attended the deceased when he was in injured condition. He stated that he found bruise on the left thigh and fracture of femur bone and fracture of upper part of tibia with the lacerated wound. He further found lacerated wound on the left elbow joint and fracture of humorous and there were multiple bruises over left side of chest. As per him, all the injuries were caused by lathi and danda. The injury report was exhibited as Ext.1. P.W.-4 is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of the deceased. He also found that radius and ulna of left side was fractured and the humorous was also fractured. He found fracture of right tibia and fibula. He also opined that the injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. He mentioned in cross-examination that the fractures were simple. The postmortem report was marked as exhibit-2.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been ably assisted by Ms. Roop Kamal, learned amicus curiae. We direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make payment of Rs.7,500/- as remuneration to learned amicus curie. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 21st October, 2024 AKT/Satendra 3