Case Facts:
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.293 of 2000 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17TH JULY, 2000 PASSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO. 87 OF 1999/279 OF 1996 BY 7TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, GAYA =========================================================== 1.RAMASHISH RAVIDAS 2.SURESH RAVIDAS, BOTH SON OF BANDHU RAVIDAS @ KISHUN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-GADAHWAPAR, TOLA (BARAUNI) P.S.WAZIRGANJ, DISTRICT-GAYA .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. ABHIMANYU SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT/S : MRS. ABHA SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th of July, 2000 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Gaya in Sessions Case No. 87 of 1999/279 of 1996 convicting the appellant no. 1 under [STATUTE] to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and under Section 324 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years. The appellant no. 2 Suresh Ravidas has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under [STATUTE] . 2. The prosecution case, as narrated by the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 informant Balchand Ravidas (P.W.6) is that on 06.04.1995 the appellants were cutting bamboo plants. The informant protested whereupon the appellant no. 2 inflicted a lathi blow on the informant, whereas the appellant no. 1 inflicted one axe blow which injured the finger of the informant. The informant’s younger brother intervened in the dispute, he too was assaulted by appellant no. 1 by inflicting axe blow on his head whereas appellant no. 2 inflicted lathi blow on his legs and chest. The wife of the informant was also injured as she was assaulted by appellant no. 2 by lathi. 3. The injury report prepared by P.W.7, Dr. G.K.Singh indicates that all the injuries including the injury inflicted by an axe is simple in nature. However, Dhano Devi, wife of the informant had received injury on her forearm. The X-ray was advised which shows that there was a fracture of the right elbow. On the basis of the X-ray report, the injury was declared to be grievous in nature. 4. Apart from the Doctor, seven other witnesses including the Investigating Officer have been examined in this case on behalf of the prosecution. The witnesses by and large supported the prosecution version. P.W.1 Sajeewan Das claims himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence and stated that he Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 was trying to pacify the dispute. In the same breadth this witness discloses that when he reached at the place of occurrence he found three persons were lying on the ground in an unconscious condition. Both these statements according to the Counsel for the appellants contradict each other. 5. P.W.2 Vijay Das also claims to be an eye witness, he reached the place of occurrence when he heard a commotion and saw the occurrence taking place. 6. P.W. 3 Dukhan Yadav has also supported the prosecution version. At paragraph 6 of the deposition he states that he reached at the place of occurrence when he heard sound of shouts and saw the occurrence taking place. He firmly states that by the time he reached the place of occurrence, one person was already beaten and Dhano Devi was in an injured condition. 7. P.W.5 Nanhak Ravidas is also an eye witness in this case. He supports the prosecution version of the occurrence. 8. P.W.6 Balchand Ravidas was the informant in this case. He supports the manner of occurrence however, at para 6 he states that there was no intention on behalf of the accused persons to kill him. It is admitted by the witnesses as well as the informant that both the informant and the accused are related to each other. Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 9. Counsel for the appellants, therefore, submits that there was no intention to kill and the occurrence took place at the spur of the moment after sudden provocation. The injury is on Nanku, the brother of the informant and his wife because they had intervened in the matter. It further goes to show that at least as far as two accused persons, there is no motive to assault except that they became part of dispute by intervening in the occurrence. 10. Counsel for the appellants further submits at first paragraph this way the witness says “Humko Ek Tangi Laga Jan Marne Ka Niyat Nahi Tha To Tangi Se Kyon Mara”. It is submitted that the witnesses including the informant stated that there was no intention to kill and thereafter changes his statement in order to cover up his statement. 11. On consideration of the evidence as well as the First Information Report it would appear that this occurrence took place because of the dispute over the bamboo clamp which has lead to exchange of hot words and subsequent overt act. It would appear from the First Information Report and in the subsequent evidence which has come during the trial of the case that no motive to kill can be attached in the given set of facts. There was scuffle between the parties in which injuries were inflicted on the appellants’ brother and wife because they intervened in the fight Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.293 of 2000 dt.16-07-2012 and were assaulted by the appellants who were armed with an axe, in order to cut the bamboo plants. 12. This Court, therefore, comes to the conclusion that this Court cannot justify the conviction under [STATUTE] as there was no intention to kill. As per the evidence of P.W.6 it is

Applicable IPC Section: 325

Statute Text:
Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.