Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 879 (RAJ)

Chatra v. State of Rajasthan

2016-06-16

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. Goverdhan Bardhar, J. This criminal appeal has been filed by the accused appellant against the judgment dated 21.05.1994 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bali (for short "the trial court") in Criminal Case No. 33/92 whereby, he convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC and sentenced him to four years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Puna lodged a First Information Report on 14.03.1992 at 12:30 PM with the allegation that the complainant had lodged a FIR against the appellant as they had previous enmity and on 13.03.92 in the evening at about 5:30 PM when he was returning home from Danavrali along with Bhura and Kala at that time, accused appellant shot arrow upon him which hit his left hand near elbow. Thereafter, the accused appellant shot another arrow which he missed and he ran away from the place and went home and next day he went for treatment to the hospital. 3. Upon the said report, a case was registered against the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. Thereafter, investigation took place and a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. 4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and various documents were also exhibited Thereafter, statement of appellant was recorded wherein he denied the alienations and claimed trial. 5. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the intention or knowledge to cause death as contemplated in Section 307 IPC must be established. In the present case, in the first instance, no FSL report has been produced by the prosecution whether the arrow is blood stained or not and further as per statement of PW/13 Bhura, at the relevant time, it was dark and it cannot be said that the appellant shot arrow at Puna. In the present case, in the first instance, no FSL report has been produced by the prosecution whether the arrow is blood stained or not and further as per statement of PW/13 Bhura, at the relevant time, it was dark and it cannot be said that the appellant shot arrow at Puna. Secondly, there are material contradictions in the statements of Puna PW/12 and Bhura PW/13 and as per evidence of doctor PW/9 Ganga Prasad Bohra, the injuries were simple in nature, therefore, no case for offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the accused appellant and that the case does not travel beyond Section 324 IPC. It is submitted that the injury was simple one and it was not such as was in the ordinary course of nature likely to result in death. According to learned counsel, before a person can be found guilty of the offence of an attempt to commit murder the prosecution must establish that the actual act which the assailant is shown to have committed was such as in the ordinary course of nature would have resulted in death, therefore, the offence does not fall within the purview of Section 307 IPC and same may be altered to Section 324 IPC. It is further submitted that if the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 324 IPC, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant in jail. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1965 SC 843 , Mani Ram v. State of Rajasthan reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 1988 542 and Harlal v. State reported in Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 2005(2) 895. 7. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned PP submitted that there is no occasion either to interfere with the finding and the sentence awarded to the accused appellant by the learned Court below nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. It is submitted that the accused appellant has attacked the complainant with deadly weapon which was likely to cause death of the complainant, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. 8. It is submitted that the accused appellant has attacked the complainant with deadly weapon which was likely to cause death of the complainant, therefore, the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 307 IPC. 8. I have considered the arguments raised on behalf of the appellant as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial court regarding conviction of the accused-appellant. It is an admit fact that the injuries found on the body of injured were simple n nature and not on vital parts of the body. In the case of Mani Ram (supra), this Court has held that intention of the accused person has to be established from either the nature of his act actually committed by him or from other surrounding circumstances. Where the injury has actually been cause to the victim, the prosecution while attempting to establish that the real intention of the accused was to cause an injury or the nature of which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or was so imminently dangerous that it would cause death, had further to establish the intention or knowledge of the accused as contemplated in Section 307 IPC. The burden of proof is on the prosecution and not on the accused. In this matter, the prosecution has not produced any evidence to prove the position where the injured and accused were standing. PW/13 Bhura states that at thee relevant time, it was dark and nobody could see in the dark. Further, in the present case, the arrow was allegedly shot by the appellant and the injuries sustained are simple in nature as per opinion of the doctor. 9. Taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that conviction recorded by the learned trial court under Section 307 IPC is not liable to be sustained and instead the accused is required to be convicted under Section 324 IPC. 10. In view of above discussion, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellant under Section 307 IPC is altered and instead he is held guilty for offence under Section 324 IPC and for his offence he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is on bail. He need no surrender before the trial court. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.