Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.178 of 1999 =========================================================== 1. Md. Abdul Kalam, son of Late Wajid Ali, 2. Md. Hifizur @ Bauka, Son of Md. Abdul Kalam & 3. Md. Islam, son of Md. Abdul Kalam All resident of village-Chhoti Ballia, P.S.Ballia, District-Begusarai. .... .... Appellants Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : M/S Fauzia Shakil, Sajid Salim Khan, Shoeb Alam. Advocates . For the Respondent : Mr Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH C.A.V. JUDGMENT Date: 30-07-2012 By a judgment pronounced on 20.07.2009 in Sessions Trial No.52 of 1982 arising out of Balia P.S.Case No.11 of 1978, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Begusarai found appellant no.1 Md. Abdul Kalam and appellant no.2 Md. Hifizur @ Bauka guilty under [STATUTE] . By the same judgment he found appellant no.3 guilty under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-II by the order pronounced on 21.07.1999 sentenced appellant nos.1 and 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years under [STATUTE] and appellant no.3 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years under [STATUTE] , rigorous imprisonment for six 2 years under [STATUTE] and rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences so awarded to the appellant no.3 have been ordered to run concurrently. The convicts being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgement and order passed by the trial court have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 15.05.1978, the informant Mir Belal was ploughing his field and his elder brother Mir Allauddin was sitting near his field. Appellant no.1 Md. Abdul Kalam was also ploughing his field and his son, appellant no.2 Hifizur Rehman was ploughing adjacent field. At about 10 a.m. it is alleged that appellant no.1 Md. Abdul Kalam stopped ploughing, came and enquired from the informant as to why he had ploughed his land. The informant denied to have ploughed his field. They entered into a wordy duel. The informant further alleges that Md. Abdul Kalam and his son Hifizur Rehman started abusing him. A protest was raised by the informant upon which Md. Abdul Kalam asked his son Hifizur Rehman to go to the village and call Md. Khodadad and Islam with arms. Thereafter Hifizur Rahman came together with Khodadad and Islam. It is further alleged that Khodadad ordered to assault on which Islam took out his pistol and fired on the informant and his brother. The further allegation is that informant’s 3 brother Allauddin sustained fire arm injury and he fell down. Thereafter, Md. Abdul Kalam and Hifizur Rehman assaulted the informant with lathi indiscriminately. On shouting made Md. Idris, Raghunath Dhobi, Khakho Mir and Gorakh Yadav came who intervened and pacified the quarrel between the parties. 3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Balia P.S.Case No.11 dated 15.05.1978 was registered under [STATUTE] and Section 25A and 26 of the Arms Act and investigation was taken up. The police on conclusion of investigation submitted chargesheet in the case. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Begusarai took cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court of Sessions for trial. The trial court framed the charge under [STATUTE] against all the three appellants. Appellant no.3 Md. Islam was separately charged under [STATUTE] and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants did not plead guilty and thus they were put on trial. 4. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses. Out of the seven witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.6 Sukehdeo Prasad Chaurasia and P.W.7 Sheo Shanker Choudhery are formal witnesses who have proved sanction order and the case diary which have been marked as Ext-3 and Ext-4 4 respectively. P.W.1 Gorakh Yadav and P.W.2 Raghunath Rajak are named in the FIR but they have not supported the prosecution case in course of trial and as such they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W.3 Md. Rizwan and P.W.4 Md. Multan Khan are the other two witnesses on the point of occurrence. P.W.5 Dr. S.M.Waquar had examined the informant and his brother and issued injury reports. The informant Mir Belal and his brother Mir Allauddin have not been examined by the prosecution in course of trial. The investigating officer of the case has also not been examined during trial. 5. Apart from the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution one Dinesh Jha has been examined as a court witness who has proved carbon copy of the FIR which has been marked as Ext-1 with objection. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Ramsharan Rajak, D.W.2 Mir Sah and D.W.3 Bhubneshwar Yadav have been examined. The defence has also brought some documents on record in support of their innocence. 6. As stated above, P.W.1 Gorakh Yadav and P.W.2 Raghunath Rajak are named in the FIR who came on alarm having been raised at the place of occurrence. These witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and they state in their examination-in- chief that they knew nothing about the occurrence. The prosecution 5 declared them hostile. These two witnesses are of no help to the prosecution. 7. On the point of occurrence, the prosecution has examined two other witnesses, namely, Md. Rizwan(P.W.3) and Md. Multan Khan(P.W.4). P.W.3 Md. Rizwan states in his examination-in- chief that he was acquainted with the informant and Allauddin. The o

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.