Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 325 (PAT)

Siyaram Mandal S/o Karu Mandal v. State of Bihar

2019-02-22

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on I.A. No. 3095 of 2018 as well as on the point of admission. 2. I.A. No. 3095 of 2018 has been filed under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. ( wrongly mentioned as Section 387(3) of the Cr.P.C.) for grant of leave to file and pursue this criminal appeal. 3. The applicant-appellant is informant and injured and, therefore, he has right to challenge the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I.A. No. 3095 of 2018 stands allowed and the applicant-appellant is permitted to pursue this criminal appeal. 4. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment dated 25.06.2018 and sentence order dated 28.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 1, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 261 of 2007, G.R. No. 1169 of 2006 by which and whereunder, he convicted the respondents no. 2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 325 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 325 of the I.P.C. and further to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-each for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C. However, the learned trial court acquitted the aforesaid respondents from the charge framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that there was sufficient material before the trial court to convict the respondents no. 2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. but the learned trial court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right perspective. He submitted that in the present case, sword, farsa and lathi were used for causing injury to injureds and the prosecution succeeded to prove the aforesaid fact but learned trial court wrongly acquitted the private respondents from the charge of Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the impugned judgment arguing that the learned trial Judge has noticed that there was no repetition of blow nor there was any intervening circumstance to prevent the respondents to fulfill their desire and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly acquitted the private respondents from the charge framed under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. 7. Having heard the above stated contentions of the parties, we went through the record and in our view, this criminal appeal can be disposed of on admission stage itself. 8. No doubt, the appellant (informant) claimed in his ferdbeyan that he as well as others were assaulted by sword, farsa and lathi but it would appear from perusal of the impugned judgment that there was no repetition of blow nor there was any intervening circumstance to prevent the respondents to fulfill their desire. No doubt, to constitute an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., the injury is not essential but to judge as to whether an offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. has been committed or not, the weapon used in committing the crime, the intervening circumstances, the force used in causing the injury are facts which need to be taken into consideration. 9. In the present case, no doubt, it appears that some injureds sustained grievous injury but the aforesaid injury does not appear to be on vital part of body of the injured and furthermore, we find that the respondents no. 2 to 4 did not repeat the blow and, therefore, the learned trial court rightly held that respondents no. 2 to 4 had no intention to commit the murder of the injureds nor they had knowledge that injuries caused to injureds may cause their death. 10. Therefore, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, we do not find any force in this criminal appeal and accordingly, this criminal appeal stands dismissed on admission stage itself.