Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1297 (PAT)

Ram Swaroop Sahni v. State of Bihar

2013-11-14

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellant has been convicted under Sections 307, 324 and 447, IPC and sentenced to RI for ten years three years and three months respectively by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur in S.Tr. No. 129 of 1992 by judgment and order dated 20.9.2001. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant. Guru Prasad Das is that he had renounced the world since a long time and was travelling to various Maths spending time there. On 3.6.1990 when he was at Nirpur math at 5 p.m. suddenly the appellant assaulted him with a fasuli on account of which he sustained various injuries. The appellant was also threatening him of causing his murder with fire-arm and he was carrying a bomb and pistol also. The reason for the occurrence is that some boys were plucking mangoes from the orchard of the math on the same day which was objected to by the mahanth which had enraged Swaroop Sahani, appellant and he had threatened him of dire consequences. 3. During trial the prosecution examined seven witnesses out of whom PW 3, the injured informant was examined in support of the prosecution case as an eyewitness. He stated that at about 1.30 p.m. when some boys were plucking mangoes from the orchard Mahanth, Guru Prasad Das had rebuked them which had infuriated the appellant on account of which he had threatened him of dire consequences if in future a protest was made on plucking of mangoes. Later in the day he assaulted the informant with a fasuli causing numerous injuries. Doctor, PW 6 found as many as seven injuries on the abdomen, forearm and shoulder joint but all of them were simple in nature. PW 1, Sheo Shankar Das and PW 2, Devendra Das reached place of occurrence and partly saw the occurrence. They supported the fact that the appellant had seen assaulting the informant. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 4 and PW 7 are formal in nature. 4. From the evidence of the informant it is not clear as to why the appellant had assaulted the informant even though it was another mahanth (not examined) who had rebuked him for having plucked the mangoes. 5. PW 5 is the Investigating Officer whereas PW 4 and PW 7 are formal in nature. 4. From the evidence of the informant it is not clear as to why the appellant had assaulted the informant even though it was another mahanth (not examined) who had rebuked him for having plucked the mangoes. 5. Moreover, if at all the intention of the appellant was to cause his death there being no intervening circumstances the object would have been achieved. Instead, I find that simple and superfluous injuries had been inflicted by the appellant on non-vital parts. In such circumstances, this Court would be of the opinion that no offence under Section 307, IPC is made out and prosecution has failed to prove its case under Section 307, IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. 6. Hence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 is set aside. However, the conviction under Sections 324 and 447 is maintained but the period of sentence is reduced to one which has been undergone by him i.e. more than three years. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence. Appeal partly allowed.