Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.14 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 17TH DECEMBER, 1999 PASSED IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 197 OF 1995 ARISING OUT OF BETTIAH (TOWN) POLICE STATION CASE NO. 227 OF 1994 PASSED BY SHRI PRABHU NATH LAL, 3RD ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, BETTIAH =========================================================== VINOD RAM, SON OF BAIDYANATH RAM, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BASWARIA, POLICE STATION BETTIAH (TOWN), DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN .... .... Appellant/s Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Manish Kumar Saran For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-07-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17th December, 1999 passed in Sessions Trial No. 197 of 1995 (arising out of Bettiah Town Police Station Case No. 227 of 1994) by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bettiah. Initially, two persons were put on trial, but in course of trial, one of the accused, namely, Baidyanath Ram was acquitted by the Trial Court, whereas the appellant has been found and held guilty for the offences under [STATUTE] and convicted him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months under [STATUTE] and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under [STATUTE] . Both the sentences are Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2000 dt.20-06-2012 2 / 7 2 to run concurrently. The appellant was also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the injured Ram Nath Ram and Rs. 1,000/- to the injured Budhu Ram. 2. The prosecution case, as per the First Information Report instituted by Ram Nath Ram (PW 3) on 28th July, 1994 at 01:45 PM indicates that the occurrence took place in two parts. It is stated that Ram Nath Ram was getting his wall constructed, Baidyanath Ram and the appellant intervened and it is alleged that the appellant assaulted Budhu Ram, one of the labourers by means of a FARSA. The informant (PW 3) took Budhu Ram to the hospital for treatment and while he was returning, it is alleged that Vinod Ram by means of a DABIA assaulted him on his head as well as on different parts of his body, which was witnesses by PWs 5 and 6, who were the shopkeepers of the vicinity. The reason for the alleged occurrence is land dispute and criminal cases between the parties. 3. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution. PWs 1 and 3 are the injured, PWs 5 and 6 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, PW 4 is the doctor who has examined the injured PW 3(informant) and PW 8 is the doctor who has examined the injured PW 1. PW 9 is the doctor who has conducted the X-ray of the skull of PW 3. The X-ray report is Exhibit-7. 4. The evidence that has come on record Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2000 dt.20-06-2012 3 / 7 3 indicates that there was an enmity between Ram Nath Ram and Baidyanath Ram (since acquitted) and his son Vinod Ram. The reason for the enmity was that Baidyanath Ram had purchased a piece of land from Doma Ram, who according to the informant, had no right, title or possession over the lands in question. It was the khatiyani land belonging to the grandfather of PW 3 Ram Nath Ram. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 disclosed that there was a wall under construction near the house of the informant, which led Vinod Ram to assault Budhu Ram, one of the workers. The specific case which seems to be undisputed is that the informant took Budhu Ram after he was injured to the hospital. It may be noted that PW 3 was not assaulted by Vinod Ram, although he was supposedly present at the place of occurrence. It was while returning from the hospital that Vinod Ram assaulted Ram Nath Ram (PW 3), which led to the injuries. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the appellant that as far as the first part of the occurrence is concerned, which took place at 10 AM, Ram Nath Ram took no steps either to report the matter to the police or lodge a sanha against the appellant and his father, which would go to show that in fact there was no consorted efforts on behalf of the accused to stop the construction of the wall, as if there was an intention to stop the work at the site where the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.14 of 2000 dt.20-06-2012 4 / 7 4 construction work was going on, the appellant and his father would have also assaulted the main person, i.e. the informant Ram Nath Ram, PW 3, against whom they had a grudge and against whom they were aggrieved. It has been argued that the single simple injury caused to the injured Budhu Ram would also indicate that the injuries was due to some accident which took place at the building site, rather than in the manner as discussed in the First Information Report. This aspect of the matter has been highlighted by contending that whereas the informant claims that Budhu Ram was assaulted by FARSA, Budhu Ram in his deposition before the Court, has stated that he was assaulted by means of a BHALA. According to the appellant, therefore, it is a case of false implication and the occurrence did not took place in the manner alleged and, therefore, this Court ought to disregard the entire evidence of PW 3 with respect to the first part of the occurrence. 6. The contradiction, according to the Counsel for the appellant, indicates that in fact PW 3 was not present at the place of occurrence when Budhu Ram was injured and as such there was no attempt by the appellant to assault him. The evidence of PW 3 read with the evidence of PWs 5 and 6 would indicate that Vinod Ram assaulted PW 3 in the market place with a DABIA on his head. Counsel for the appellant has

Applicable IPC Section: 307

Statute Text:
Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Attempt to murder. Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by Life Convicts: When any person offending under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.