Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.323 of 2000 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 24.8.2000 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 29.8.2000, PASSED BY MR. MD. KHURSHID ALAM, 2ND ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, EAST CHAMPARAN, MOTIHARI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 276 OF 1987/92 OF 1988, ARISING OUT OF KUNDWA CHAINPUR P.S. CASE NO. 58 OF 1987. =========================================================== 1. Sk. Kamrullah @ Sk. Kamrull, Son of Ramjan. 2. Sk. Azaz Ahmad @ Sk. Azaz Amod, Son of Sk. Jamil Akhtar. 3. Sk. Abdul Salam, Son of Gani Mohammad. 4. Sk. Safique, Son of Wali Mohammad. 5. Sk. Abdul Latif, Son of Wali Mohammad. 6. Sk. Zamil Akhtar, Son of Sk. Khalil. 7. Sk. Abdul Salam, Son of Sk. Illiyas. 8. Sk. Ainul, Son of Sk. Hamid. 9. Sk. Faruque, Son of Habibur Rahman. 10. Sk. Baksis, Son of Gani Mohammad. 11. Sk. Roz Mohammad, Son of Sk. Samsuddin. 12. Sk. Tahir, Son of Soyeb. 13. Sk. Kamrul Hoda, Son of Sk. Samsul. 14. Sk. Shaukat, Son of Sk. Samad. 15. Sk. Manjoor, Son of Sk. Abdul Rahman. 16. Sk. Serazul, Son of Sk. Abdul Rahman. 17. Sk. Shah Mohammad, Son of Abdul Mazid. 18. Sk. Harun, Son of Habibur Rahman. 19. Sk. Hakim, Son of Tasduk Hussail. All are residents of Village Banjaraha, P.S. Kuranwa, Chainpur, District East Champaran (Motihari). .... .... Appellants Versus The State of Bihar .... .... Respondent =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellants : Mr. Dilip Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. K.D. Pratap, Advocate For the Informant : Mr. S.M. Nematullah, Advocate Mr. Anisur Rahman, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 29-11-2012 S.A. Khan, J. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2000 dt.29-11-2012 2 / 8 2 submits that he has instruction to state before this Court that Sk. Kamrullah, Son of Ramjan, Sk. Manjoor, Son of Sk. Abdul Rahman, Sk. Shah Mohammad, Son of Abdul Mazid and Sk. Hakim, Son of Tasduk Hussail have died during pendency of this appeal. The Trial Court is directed to ascertain this fact. In case the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that these appellants have died, the appeal against them would abate, if not, they will be covered by the judgment and order passed by this Court in this appeal. 2. All the appellants have found guilty under [STATUTE] and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. They have also been found guilty under [STATUTE] and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that Md. Jamshed was going to work at Dhaka Bazar by bicycle when he was surrounded by 19 named accused persons near the hut of Jamil Akhtar. It is alleged that Sk. Manzoor (who is now dead) inflicted a Farsa blow on the head of the informant whereas all the other 18 accused persons assaulted him on his hands, legs and other parts of the body. It is alleged that Sk. Latif took away the H.M.T. watch belonging to the informant. The motive for the occurrence disclosed in the First Information Report is that Sk. Serazul and Sk. Hafiz are accused in a Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2000 dt.29-11-2012 3 / 8 3 case of dacoity in which Md. Mustafa, P.W. 8, the brother of the informant has given evidence against them. Being aggrieved by this fact the said occurrence is said to have taken place. 4. The defence on behalf of the appellants is that there is a counter case in which Roz Mohammad, P.W. 2, Anwarul Haque, P.W. 5, Sk. Mustafa, P.W. 8, and the informant are accused. A compromise petition was filed in this case as well as in the counter case which have been marked as Ext. A/1 and A/3 respectively. The defence has also brought on record several First Information Reports instituted by them in the year 1984-85 regarding some land dispute in which occurrences had taken place between the appellants and the informant and his family members. It is thus, submitted that there is admitted enmity between the two parties. 5. Counsel appearing on behalf of the informant on the other hand submits that three persons were injured out of which the informant was grievously injured as he had fractured both his hands as a result of the injuries inflicted on him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has been able to show by leading evidence in Court that the manner of occurrence as made out in the First Information Report is the correct version of the case. 6. In the present case, ten witnesses have been examined. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined who Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.323 of 2000 dt.29-11-2012 4 / 8 4 would have perhaps able to state as to which of the occurrences is the true version. In any event, this Court will begin with the evidence of the doctor who has been examined as P.W. 7. The doctor, P.W. 7 has found simple injuries on Roz Mohammad, P.W. 2, Sk. Anwarul Haque, P.W. 5 and Mustafa, P.W. 8, whereas he has found six injuries on the person of the informant out of which two of them are fractures of the right and left arm. The injury by Farsa is injury no. 3 which is an incised wound. Apart from which there is swelling and bruises on the body of the informant. It may be mentioned here that the First Information Report also discloses that P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and P.W. 8 had intervened in the occurrence and were assaulted by the accused persons. From the doctor’s report, it is apparent that four persons were injured on the informant side in the said occurrence. 7. Besides the informant three witnesses who have been named in the First Information Report have come forward to support the prosecution version, they are P.W. 3, Sk. Muslim, P.W. 6, Sk. Tufail, P.W. 9, Shafi Mohammad. It is said that these witnesses along with others named

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.