Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.364 OF 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2000 PASSED BY SHRI SARWESHWAR NATH, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KATIHAR IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 228 OF 1991 ARISING OUT OF BARSOI POLICE STATION CASE NO. 80 OF 1991 =========================================================== 1. SAIDUR RAHMAN, SON OF LATE ABID HUSAIN 2. MD. EKHALAQUE ALAM, SON OF SAIDUR RAHMAN 3. MD. SHABIB ALAM @ KALU, SON OF SAIDUR RAHMAN 4. MD. JAHIRUDDIN @ JAHIRUDDIN, SON OF LATE ATTAR HUSSAIN 5. MD. JUBER, SON OF MD. JAHIRUDDIN 6. MD. MUKHTAR ALAM @ MUKHTAR ALAM, SON OF MD. JAHIRUDDIN ALL ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHOUNDI, POLICE STATION BARSOI, DISTRICT KATIHAR .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. ABDUL WADOOD, ADVOCATE MR. KULANAND JHA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 08-10-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The appellant Saidur Rahman has been found guilty under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and two years respectively, appellants 2 and 3, namely, Md. Ekhalaque Ahmad and Shabib Alam have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, whereas the other appellants have been found guilty under Sections 147 and 323 Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.364 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 2 / 7 2 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each offences by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Katihar in Sessions Trial No. 228 of 1991. 2. On the basis of the fardbayan of one Manzoor Alam, a case was instituted against the appellants for a dispute with respect to cutting of the jackfruits from the tree, which was, according to the informant, on the lands allocated to him in the family partition. It is alleged that Saidur Rahman armed with a dabia aimed at the neck of the informant, which cut the upper eye-lid of the informant. It is also alleged that the other accused persons gave him lathi blows. 3. The defence, on behalf of the appellants, is that the appellant no. 1, Saidur Rahman, Allauddin and Nasimuddin are three brothers, who had partitioned the land amongst themselves. Allauddin had sold 10 kathas of land out of his share to the informant, Manzoor Alam. The appellant no. 1 claims that the said jackfruit tree stands on the land allocated to him, whereas Manzoor Alam, the informant, claims that the tree is on the lands which he had purchased from Allauddin. Both parties claim that the lands were measured on several occasions by the Amin. The informant got the land measured by a private Amin, whereas the appellant no. 1 on two occasions, once on the orders of the Circle Officer and once without any order, got the lands measured and the Amin concluded that the jackfruit tree Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.364 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 3 / 7 3 stands on the lands belonging to him. The appellants and the informant, both, have filed the measurement reports regarding the lands in which the jackfruit tree is situated. A counter case was filed by Saidur Rahman in which Md. Hallal (PW 1), Md. Mojibur Rahman (PW 2), Md. Samim Akhtar (PW 3) as well as some others have been made accused. The case has been tried, resulting in the conviction of the aforesaid persons in this case. The present case, according to the appellants, is a counter case to the earlier case filed by the appellants. The argument on behalf of the appellants is that the present case, Barsoi Police Station Case No. 80 of 1991 is false and fabricated. The witnesses are actually not the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, which would be evident from the depositions and that the informant has contradicted himself inasmuch as he has stated something different in the First Information Report to what he has deposed before the Trial Court. 4. PW 1 Md. Hallal is the cousin of the informant. He admits that he came to the place of occurrence when he heard the sound of raised voices. He claims that he did not see any injury on anybody else except Saidur Rahman. According to him, he had seen that Saidur Rahman had received injury on the eye. On perusal of the evidence of PW 1, the conclusion which this Court arrives is, that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and that there was a land dispute between the parties. It would also appear that this witness has not stated as Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.364 of 2000 dt.08-10-2012 4 / 7 4 claimed by him that he had disclosed the weapons carried by the appellants before the Investigating Officer. Thus, this Court concludes that the evidence of PW 1 is not reliable for the reasons aforesaid. 5. PW 2 Md. Mojibur Rahman is the uncle of the informant. He too had not witnessed the occurrence and he admits the counter case as well as the fact that Allauddin had sold part of his land to the informant Manzoor Alam. He also admits that there was measurement of the respective shares of the parties by the Amin. When he came to the place of occurrence, he found Manzoor Alam in an injured condition. Thus, PW 2 is merely a hearsay witness and cannot be said to be the eye-witness to the actual occurrence. 6. PW 3 Md. Shamim Akhtar stated that he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. His evidence does not disclose anything about the manner of occurrence and thus, he is not an important witness in this case. 7. PW 4 Abdul Majid was having a cup of tea at a tea stall at the time of the occurrence. He admits that when he came to the place of occurrence, the accused persons were not present there. According to this witn

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.