Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.34 of 2000 dt.19-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.34 of 2000 ========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 25TH OF NOVEMBER, 1999 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.162 OF 1993 PASSED BY SRI RUKMINI KANT CHAUDHARY, 9TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SARAN AT CHAPRA =========================================================== 1.Satrughan Singh, son of Raghunath Singh 2.Nagendra Singh, son of Chandradeep Singh 3.Ravindra Singh, son of Chandradeep Singh, all resident of village-Khalpura, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District-Saran .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prakritata Sharma, Advocate Mr. Dilip Kumar Mr. Aditya Nath Pandey Mr. Satish Narain Singh For the Respondent/s : Ms. Abha Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 19-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25th of November, 1999 passed by the 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1993 awarding the appellant Nagendra Singh a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years under [STATUTE] , whereas appellants, namely, Satrughan Singh and Ravindra Singh have been Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.34 of 2000 dt.19-07-2012 awarded a fine of Rs. 300/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for nine months for the offences under [STATUTE] . 2. The occurrence has taken place between the family members of two brothers, namely Jit Singh and Raghunath Singh. The occurrence took place due to a fight between the children of the two families, which lead to exchange of abuses between men and woman. It is alleged that Chanradeep Singh instigated the accused Nagendra Singh, who inflicted a dagger blow and on being intercepted, it is also alleged that Nagendra Singh assaulted the informant by an iron rod and Satrughan Singh assaulted the mother- in-law of the informant by a „labda‟. 3. The allegation of theft has not been proved during the trial. The doctor has found that the injuries are simple and superficial in nature. The Doctor has found bruise on the back of Sumitra Devi and another injury on her on the right mid knee. The prosecution version that a dagger blow was inflicted on the informant is not supported by the medical report. Mithileshwar Kumar Singh has also sustained bruise injuries which has been described to be simple in nature. Injury no. 4 on the informant i.e. “dislocation of tempero mandibular joints of both side corrected under local anesthesia” has been defined to be grievous in nature. In the cross- Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.34 of 2000 dt.19-07-2012 examination, the Doctor says that he did not get the injury X-ray before he removed the dislocation. It would appear that as far as the injury by iron rod which caused dislocation in the temporal bone, this Court finds it surprising that it had been corrected by surgery or the like, without there being an X-ray and without the patient being referred to an expert. Any sort of tampering with the skull bone by surgical intervention has to be performed after taking precaution. Therefore, apparently it would appear that although an injury may have been caused on the head, it cannot be to the extent as described by the doctor especially as he admits that he did not get an X-ray for the said injury and has not also explained as to how he corrected dislocation. 4. Therefore, it appears that the Trial Court has convicted the appellants under Section 324 without any cogent findings. This appeal is being heard after 23 years of the occurrence, in the circumstances it would not be proper to send the appellants to jail or make them to pay a fine, this would create further issues between the two families, who live side by side. I, thus, dispose of the appeal, with a direction to the appellants restraining them from doing any such act which would destroy the peace between the families. 5. In the result, this appeal is allowed to the extent Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.34 of 2000 dt.19-07-2012 with the admonition aforesaid and the appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. They are also discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. Vats/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)

Applicable IPC Section: 323

Statute Text:
Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.