Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.416 of 2000 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 30TH NOVEMBER, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 502 OF 1992 BY SMT. REKHA KUMARI, DISTDRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BUXAR ========================================================== 1.Hareshwar Rai Son of late Bishwanath Rai 2.Santosh Rai Son of Hareshwar Rai, both resident of Chilahari, P.S.-Dumraon, District-Buxar .... .... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shakil Ahmad Khan, Sr. Advocate Mr. Surendra Kr. Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Nr. Singh-I Mr. Md. Kamaluddin, Adv. Smt. Sudha Chandra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Abha Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 31-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30th November, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 502 of 1992 passed by the Sessions Judge, Buxar whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years each. 2. The occurrence has taken place on 11.03.1990 at about 06.00 P.M. when the accused persons were Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 returning after Holikadahan in front of the house of Hareshwar Rai. It has been alleged that Hareshwar Rai and Santosh Rai, the two appellants, had fired from the roof of their house, but the shots did not hit anybody, they have allegedly come down to their compound and thereafter appellant no. 1 ordered appellant no. 2 to open fire. Appellant no. 2 fired several rounds of fire, which injured the informant Bihari Rai and Raj Kumar Rai @ Matuki Rai. The reason for the said occurrence, according to the informant, is that the appellants have blocked the lane which resulted in exchange of hot words and on protest being raised by the informant and others, the occurrence aforesaid took place. 3. The defence of the appellants is that on the same date and at the same time the appellant no. 1 was injured and he went to the Police Station to lodge a case. He lodged Complaint Case no. 99(C) of 1990 on 06.05.1990, which has been marked as Exhibit A and was proved by D.W.1. The defence has also brought on record the injury report of Hareshwar Rai which is Exhibit C. It is apparent from Exhibit C that the doctor examined Hareshwar Rai in Sessions Trial No. 919 of 1998 which relates to Complaint Case No. 99 of 1990. According to the injury report Hareshwar Rai received lacerated wounds inflicted by a hard blunt substance, which were simple in nature. In the counter Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 case, P.W.1 and P.W.4 have been made accused. Apart from the aforesaid two documents, Exhibits D, E and G have been filed in order to prove that it was actually P.W.4 who had built a wall on the lane, which resulted in blocking the road and collection of garbage. This land was recorded as Gair Mazarua Aam land. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Buxar has held that P.W.4, Raj Kumar Rai @ Matuki Rai was responsible for blocking the road and he has been directed to remove the wall by which he has blocked the said road and the lane, in a proceeding under Section 133 Cr.P.C. There is also a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. between the parties. 4. From the evidence which has come on record, it is apparent that the occurrence has admittedly taken place. This Court has only to examine as to whether the manner of occurrence as described by the informant is the correct version! This Court shall begin with the evidence of doctor P.W.6, who has found injuries on Bihari Singh, which have been inflicted by fire arm and have been declared to be simple. Bihari Singh has come forward to support the case of the prosecution. The doctor also found that Raj Kumar Rai @ Matuki Rai had been injured by fire arm. He received a lacerated wound, almost circular about 1/8” in diameter, situated over the upper parts of his forehead, Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 which has been declared to be simple in nature. Ganesh Jee Rai, P.W.3, the informant, also received one injury which has also been declared to be simple in nature. Similarly Raj Kumar Rai @ Matuki Rai, P.W.4 has also received three injures by a hard blunt substance which according to the doctor, are simple in nature. The finding is based on the X-ray report. The ocular evidence regarding the occurrence is supported by P.W.1 to P.W.5. 5. P.W.1, Ashok Kumar Singh admits that there is enmity between the parties and that a proceeding under Section 107 Cr. P.C. was pending between the parties. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that P.W.1, Ashok Kumar Singh is highly interested witness, as he had jointly purchased a tractor along with appellant no. 1’s father which has led to certain differences between the parties. It has been pointed out that his evidence that the lane had been blocked by Santosh Rai by building wall, is in direct conflict with Exhibits 2/E and 2/F, which are orders of the Sub-divisional Officer, Buxar. Nevertheless, this witness supports the fact that an occurrence took place, in which the appellant no. 2 had fired. 6. P.W.2, Munna Gond @ Punna Goar similarly states that P.W.4, Raj Kumar Rai @ Matuki Rai and Hareshwar Rai had blocked the lane which is the genesis of the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.416 of 2000 dt.31-07-2012 occurrence. He denies that there is 133 Cr.P.C. proceeding. This denial is of no use in view of Exhibits 2/D to 2/E (certified copy of orders of the Sub-divisional Officer and other authorities). 7. P.W.3, Ganesh Jee

Applicable IPC Section: 324

Statute Text:
Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.