Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 205 (JHR)

Karar Ahmad v. State Of Bihar

2017-01-31

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard the parties. 2. In this application, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.7.2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro in S.T. No. 181/95, whereby and whereunder opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been convicted for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and they were released on probation under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act. 3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is the informant in the present case, that the evidence of the witnesses would suggest that there was an intention to commit murder of the informant as the informant had sustained grievous injuries as well as fracture including his wife but the learned court below has convicted the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. 4. Learned counsel for O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 has opposed the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. It appears from the FIR that some dispute arose on account of throwing some water, which was protested by the mother of the petitioner and on 11.4.1995 the dispute persisted which resulted in opposite party nos. 2 and 3 assaulting the petitioner with lathi. However, allegation has been levelled that the opposite party nos. 2 had inflicted lathi blow on the head of the informant whereas opposite party no. 3 had inflicted lathi blow on his hand and leg. It is alleged that there is a family dispute with respect to the partition which resulted in the incident. On the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant, Balidih P.S. Case No. 24/95 was instituted for the offence under sections 341, 325, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police under sections 341, 323, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where after framing of charge, trial proceeded. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. The question which fell for consideration before the learned trial court was as to whether an offence is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or not. In course of trial, the prosecution had examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case. The question which fell for consideration before the learned trial court was as to whether an offence is made out against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code or not. The genesis of the occurrence seems to be on account of partition and family dispute existing between the parties. The witnesses have categorically supported the prosecution case and have stated about the assault committed by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 upon the petitioner. 6. P.W-7-Dr. Krishna Nandan is the doctor in Bokaro General Hospital, who had examined the petitioner and had found the injuries on his left temporal region as well as in left arbit and blunt injury on both upper limbs. Doctor had opined that the injuries were simple in nature. 7. P.W-8- Fateh Bahadur Singh is the head of Neuro Surgery in Bokaro General Hospital who had referred the petitioner to P.W-9-J. Kurup, who is a Radiologist and as per report of Radiologist, X-ray shows fracture of Ulna but city scan of skull did not reveal any fracture. 8. It is also the consistent case of the prosecution that the informant was assaulted by the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 with a lathi and in fact the opposite party no. 2 had inflicted a single lathi blow on the head of the petitioner. It was, therefore, concluded by the learned trial court that in absence of any repeation of blow no offence under Section 307 of I.P.C. is made out against the accused persons and therefore the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 were convicted for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. It, therefore, appears from perusal of the Lower Court Records that the witnesses have not disclosed about repeatition of blow on the part of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 so as to attract an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Nature of injuries suggests that the petitioner had suffered lacerated wound on the left temporal region and there was no fracture in the scull. Circumstances would therefore reveal that there was no intention on the part of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 so as to attract an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Nature of injuries suggests that the petitioner had suffered lacerated wound on the left temporal region and there was no fracture in the scull. Circumstances would therefore reveal that there was no intention on the part of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to commit the murder of the informant and the learned court below had rightly considered this aspect of the matter while convicting the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 for the offence under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Proper consideration has also been made with respect to the sentence awarded to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 since they did not have any criminal antecedents and the entire incident had taken place on account of family dispute arising out of partition. The sentence awarded to the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 does not invite any interference by this Court. 9. Consequent to the discussions made herein above, I do not find any merit in this application to cause interference in the impugned order of conviction and sentence passed against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 as rightly it has been held by the learned court below that no offence is made out under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. 10. Accordingly, this application stands dismissed.