Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.173 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.4.2000, PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE-II, KHAGARIA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 269 OF 1995. =========================================================== 1. Nageshwar Das. 2. Chandradeo Das. 3. Bhuwaeshwar Das @ Bhuneshwar Das, All sons of Narain Das. 4. Shankar Das. 5. Rabindra Das. 6. Pinkoo Das. 7. Ajay Das @ Ajay Kumar Das, All sons of Late Baleshwar Das. 8. Pandav Das, Son of Chandradeo Das. 9. Lalan Kumar Das @ Lalan Das. 10. Harinandan Das, Both sons of Nageshwar Das. All residents of village Parbatta, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria. .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Kumar Udai Singh, Advocate For the State : Ms. Abha Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-09-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Appellant no. 4 has been found guilty and convicted under [STATUTE] to undergo R.I. for three years for inflicting a Farsa blow on Ram Swaroop Das. The other nine appellants in this case have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.173 of 2000 dt.21-09-2012 2 / 8 2 3. This case arises out of a complaint case filed by Ram Swaroop Das which was later converted into a First Information Report. As per the informant, the appellants and the informant and others are closely related to each other. It is said that there was a piece of land appertaining to Khesra No. 213/214 which according to the informant was in the name of Chaturi Das father of the informant. Chaturi Das was constructing a thatched hut over the said land. Appellant Shankar Das raised an objection to the construction of the thatched hut which led to the said occurrence. It is alleged that Shankar Das wanted to assault Chaturi Das, P.W. 2 who ran from the place of occurrence, in the meantime, Shankar Das assaulted Ram Swaroop with a Farsa on his head. The other accused persons are said to have been assaulted the informant by injuring him on the head. They allegedly destroyed the hut which had been constructed and then ran inside the house of Chaturi Das, assaulted his wife and took away house hold articles. The complaint was filed on 21.3.1991 for an occurrence which took place on 20.3.1991 at 8 A.M. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that the complaint case is nothing but an after thought filed on the basis of false injury report and consultation with a lawyer considering that Chandradeo Das, appellant no. 2 had filed Parbatta P.S. Case No. 25 of 1991 (Sessions Trial No. 54 of 1992) at 7.45 A.M. on 20.3.1991 in which it has been alleged that Charuti Das gave the order and one Bipin Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.173 of 2000 dt.21-09-2012 3 / 8 3 Das is said to have fired at Baleshwar Das, father of appellant no. 4 to 7. The reason for the occurrence as per the First Information Report instituted by appellant no. 2 is that there is a dispute between the parties with respect to partition of land which is adjacent to the house of the appellants. The appellants have also made out a case that the so called injured persons were examined in the private clinic of the Civil Surgeon and not at the hospital which would be apparent from the evidence of he doctor and the informant. 4. Eight witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution to establish their case. P.W. 6 is the doctor in this case. P.W. 7 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 8 has proved the formal First Information Report (Ext. 3). P.Ws. 1 to 5 are witnesses with respect to manner in which the occurrence is said to have taken place. At the outset it may be mentioned that P.W. 1, Phul Kumar Das was not examined by the Investigating Officer and has come for the first time to depose in Court regarding the occurrence. In his cross-examination, this witness admits that Baleshwar Das died for which a case has been filed in which he is an accused. He also admits that there was a dispute with respect to measurement of the land, which is the place of occurrence. It would also appear from his evidence that police station is just 200 meters away from the place of occurrence whereas the hospital is at a distance of 400 meters. According to this witness, a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.173 of 2000 dt.21-09-2012 4 / 8 4 Panchayati had taken place in which there was measurement of the land and a pillar demarcating the lands of the parties had been placed as a result of the said Panchayat. At paragraph 30, this witness admits that the complaint case had been filed after consulting a lawyer. This Court will disbelieve this witness to the extent that he could not have been an eye witness to the occurrence however, his cross-examination can be considered for other purposes, such as genesis of the occurrence and the fact that he has admitted that the police station was close by, and such there should be a good explanation as to why the informant did not think it proper to go to the police station to file a First Information Report instead of filing a complaint case. 5. P.W. 2, Chaturi Das is an eye witness to the occurrence. Chaturi Das supports the case of the informant. This witness has for the first time explained the death of Baleshwar Das in Court. According to this witness it was Rabindra Das, appellant no. 5, who had fired with intention to kill Chaturi but because of his bad aim Baleshwar received injuries. In other words this witness is trying to say that appellant no. 5 had killed hisfather by mistake. On consideratio

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.