Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 449 (PAT)

Suresh Mochi v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-28

INDU PRABHA SINGH

body2007
Judgment 1. The sole appellant Suresh Mochi has been convicted under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 9.9.83 at about 7.30 P.M. the informant Bankey Mochi was sitting on a cot at his sahan of his village. His son Ram Pravesh Mochi was also sitting there on a chair and was reading a book and his other two sons, namely, Srikant Mochi and Surendra Mochi were also reading books. It has been stated that a bulb was also lighting near the sahan on a public pole. It has further been stated that the accused persons are nephew of the informant. One of the accused namely Suresh Mochi had been allotted quota of Darra (grain) but due to his misconduct his quota was cancelled and the same was allotted to his son Ram Pravesh Mochi which infuriated the accused persons. It has also been stated that a day before the alleged occurrence they had threatened the victim with dire consequences for taking away their quota of Darra. It has been further stated that on the alleged date of occurrence all the three accused persons armed with Sword and lathi came to his sahan and began to assault Ram Pravesh Mochi. The accused Suresh Mochi assaulted him with sword on his neck and right shoulder. However, in the meantime, Ram Pravesh Mochi caught hold the sword which also caused multiple cut injury on his palm and arm. Other accused persons also assaulted him with lathi and thereafter they fled away. On hulla Bindeshwari Mahto, Sidheshwar Ram, Sadhu Mahto and others came at the spot and saw the occurrence. The informant immediately with the help of Jugal Das, Raj Kumar, Hari Lal and others brought the victim to Athmalgola RS. and where his fardbeyan was recorded and he put his signature over it. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan a formal F.I.R. was registered and after completion of investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is Surendra Das, he is the son of the informant. P.W. 2 is Srikant Das, he is also the son of the informant. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined altogether 7 witnesses. 5. P.W. 1 is Surendra Das, he is the son of the informant. P.W. 2 is Srikant Das, he is also the son of the informant. P.W. 3 Bankey Mochi is the informant of this case. P.W. 4 is Krishna Kumar Singh, he is a formal witness and has proved F.I.R. Ext.2. P.W. 5 is Nageshwar Prasad Singh, he is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. 3 which is the writing and signature of Inspector of Police. P.W. S is Dr. S.R. Deokuliar. He has examined the injured Ram Pravesh Mochi and P.W. 7 is Janardan Sharma, he is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. 6. which is hand writing of A.S.I. 7. Defence has also examined four defence witnesses. D.W. 1 is Bindeshwar Mahto, D.W. 2 is Jugal Das, D.W. 3 is Singheshwar Ram and D.W. 4 is Sadhu Mahto. 8. P.W. 3 Bankey Mochi who is the informant of the case has fully supported the case of prosecution as stated in his fardbeyan. He is the father of the victim Ram Pravesh Mochi. According to him on 9.9.83 at about 7.45 P.M. he was sitting at sahan land of his house. His sons namely, Ram Pravesh Mochi, Srikant Das and Surendra Das were also sitting at Sahan and were reading books. A bulb was also burning near the sahan on public pole. He has stated that all of a sudden three accused persons armed with sword and lathi came and began to assault Ram Pravesh Mochi. The accused Suresh Mochi inflicted three blows from his sword. The first blow caused injury near the neck. The second blow caused injury on the shoulder and when he wanted to give third blow the victim caught hold the sword and thereafter the accused Suresh Mochi along with other two co-accused fled away. He has stated that his son Ram Pravesh after assault became unconscious and thereafter he was taken to Police Station on a cot where his statement was recorded by the S.I. He put his signature over it. He has stated that his son Ram Pravesh after assault became unconscious and thereafter he was taken to Police Station on a cot where his statement was recorded by the S.I. He put his signature over it. He has also stated that the accused Suresh was getting Government Dana (grain) for distribution but due to his mal-practice it was discontinued and the same was allotted to his son Ram Pravesh Mochi which was the reason of occurrence. Accused Suresh had grievance and he threatened Ram Pravesh day before the occurrence. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence the villagers Bindeshwari Mahto, Sadhu Mahto and Singheshwar had come and had seen the occurrence. 9. P.W. 1 Surendra Das and P.W.2 Srikant Das who are the sons of the informant have fully supported the version of the informant as they were present at the time of occurrence. They have stated that at about 7.45 P.M. all of a sudden, all the three accused persons came at the sahan and assaulted his brother Ram Pravesh Mochi. According to them the accused Suresh Mochi assaulted his brother with sword on his neck and shoulder and ultimately Ram Pravesh Mochi caught hold the sword which also caused injury at his palm and arm. All the aforesaid witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination in the Court below. 10. P.W. 4 is Krishna Kumar Singh, he is a formal witness and he has proved F.I.R. Ext. 2. 11. P.W. 5 Nageshwar Prasad. He is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. 3 which is writing and signature of Inspector of Police. 12. P.W. 6 is Dr. S.R. Deokuliar, he has examined the injured Ram Pravesh Mochi. According to him. he examined the victim just after the occurrence and found the following injuries :- (I) Clean cut wound of 5"x3" x 2" deep on the right side of the neck with cutting of neck muscle and clotted blood around wound; (II) Clean cut wound of 7"x3 1/2" x cavity of shoulder joint. According to him. he examined the victim just after the occurrence and found the following injuries :- (I) Clean cut wound of 5"x3" x 2" deep on the right side of the neck with cutting of neck muscle and clotted blood around wound; (II) Clean cut wound of 7"x3 1/2" x cavity of shoulder joint. Muscle around shoulder joint cut; (III) Clean cut horizontal wound on left palm just above roots of four fingers of 4" x 1/2" x (1/2" to 3/4" deep); (IV) Clean cut wound of 3/4" x 1/ 3" x 1/3" deepvoler aspect of left little finger; (V) Clean cut wound of 3/4" x 1/2" x 1/2" with cutting skin and circutineous tissues of right upper arm; (VI) Clean cut wound of 3" x 1/2" x 1/2" deep with flap everted on the posterior aspect of left upper arm. 13. According to the opinion of doctor all the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon like sword and were simple in nature except injury no. 2 which was grievous in nature. The injury report has been marked as Ext. 4. He referred the case to P.M.C.H 14. P.W. 7 is Janardan Sharma. He is also a formal witness and he has proved Ext. 5 which is hand writing of A.S.I. 15. Defence has also examined four D.Ws. D.W. 1 is Bindeshwar Mahto. D.W. 2 is Jugal Das. D.W. 3 is Singheshwar Ram and D.W. 4 is Sadhu Mahto. 16. They were chargesheeted witnesses, later they chose to support the appellant, and their testimony suffered from contradictions and thus were not considered by the Court below. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the injury was not on vital part of the body it did not attract the offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been submitted that non-examination of I.O. has prejudiced the case of appellant and place of occurrence could not be proved. 18. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the injury was not on vital part of the body it did not attract the offence under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. It has further been submitted that non-examination of I.O. has prejudiced the case of appellant and place of occurrence could not be proved. 18. As far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that injuries were not on the vital part and were simple in nature, as such the Court below should not have convicted the appellant Suresh Mochi under Sec.307 IPC but it is not the nature of the injuries which counts while awarding the conviction rather it is the intention and knowledge of the accused matters, as alleged the accused Suresh tried to assault the victim on his neck and shoulder with a sword and when he again wanted to assault him the sword was caught by the victim causing injury on his finger, as such the accused has assaulted him on the neck and shoulder with a sharp cutting weapon like sword and this act of appellant attracts the case punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. The injuries inflicted have also been corroborated by the Dr. P.W.7 who examined the victim. 19. So far non-examination of the I.O. is concerned, it was not fatal as P.Ws. 1 to 3 have consistently stated about the occurrence and assault and fully supported the place of occurrence but it remained the laxity on the part of the prosecution that they could not examine the I.O. 20. The Court below on the appreciation of the evidence on record rightly found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Sec.307 of the Indian Penal Code. 21. I do not find any reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. 22. Coming to the question of sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the occurrence took place in the year 1983 i.e. more than two decades and the appellant has been sufficiently punished and harassed during the prolong litigation, as such some lenient view may be taken while awarding the sentence to the appellant. 23. Considering the submissions, I am of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of R.I. for 7 years of the appellant is reduced to the sentence of R.I. for 4 years. 23. Considering the submissions, I am of the view that it would be expedient in the interest of justice if the sentence of R.I. for 7 years of the appellant is reduced to the sentence of R.I. for 4 years. 24. With the aforesaid modification in the sentence this appeal is dismissed. 25. Since learned counsel Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi has assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae, he will be paid his remuneration by the Legal Aid and Advice Committee, in accordance with law.