Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO. 95 OF 2000 ================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 25TH OF JANUARY, 2000 AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 27.01.2000 PASSED BY THE 8TH ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SARAN AT CHAPRA IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 561 OF 1993/54 OF 1996 ARISING OUT OF IN G.R.CASE NO. 2351 OF 1990 =========================================================== 1. VIDYA DOM S/O HIRA DOM 2. HIRA DOM S/O RAM CHANDRA DOM BOTH RESIDENTS OF MOHALLA KASHI BAZAR, DOM PARA, P.S. BHAGWAN BAZAR, DISTRICT - SARAN .... .... APPELLANT/S VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT/S =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANT/S : MR. RANJOY KUMAR FOR THE RESPONDENTS : =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-06-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. This appeal arises out of judgment of conviction dated 25th January, 2000 and the order of sentence dated 27th January, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 561 of 1993/54 of 1996 by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chapra, whereby the Trial Court has found and held the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under [STATUTE] and sentenced both of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years. 2. The prosecution case is that on 4.9.1990 at about 07.00 P.M., the informant Sudhu Dom was sitting near his Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.95 of 2000 dt.25-06-2012 2 / 4 2 door alongwith his wife, when the accused persons came and began to abuse and rebuke him for not stopping Mira Devi from instituting a case for murder of one Motilal Dom. It is alleged that Hira Dom pushed the informant and after he fell down and Vidya Dom inflicted injuries with knife. 3. Five witnesses have been examined in this case. P.W.1 and P.W.2 were declared as hostile witnesses. P.W.3 is the wife of the informant whereas P.W. 4 is the informant himself. The Doctor has been examined as P.W.5. 4. P.W. 3 Munri Devi has supported the version of his husband about the occurrence and has stated that these two persons assaulted her husband and inflicted injuries on her hand by a knife. However, there is no injury report to support the allegation of assault on P.W. 3 and, therefore, this part of the allegation cannot be substantiated by the prosecution. 5. P.W.4, Sudhu Dom (informant) has supported his version of the occurrence and has stated that the two accused persons came and had abused him and thereafter assaulted him. There is specific allegation of assault by Vidya Dom on Sudhu Dom, the informant, with a sharp cutting weapon (knife). 6. On perusal of the injury report, it would appear that there are three injuries on the back of the informant; (i) One incised wound on left scapular region 1x1/4”x1/2”x muscle deep, (ii) One incised wound on back ¼”x1/2” (iii) One abrasion on back ¼”x1/4”. The injuries have been described to be simple Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.95 of 2000 dt.25-06-2012 3 / 4 3 in nature. 7. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that a case under [STATUTE] is not made out against the appellants. It is further submitted that so far as the appellant Hira Dom is concerned, it has been alleged that he had merely pushed the informant and the injuries are not of such a serious nature which would indicate that there was an intention to kill, rather it indicates that there was a scuffle between the parties which led to the injuries which are superficial in nature. It is also submitted that the appellants was prejudiced by the fact that the Investigating Officer of this case has not been examined during the trial so as to prove the place of occurrence etc. 8. Having considered the evidence specifically, the medical evidence, this Court comes to a finding that a case is not made out under [STATUTE] and as such, the appellants can only be convicted under [STATUTE] . 9. Considering that the occurrence is of the year 1990 and that the appellants have already remained in custody for over a month, this Court dismisses this appeal by holding the appellant guilty under [STATUTE] , and further holding that the period undergone by the appellants would meet the ends of justice. 10. The appellants are also discharged from the Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.95 of 2000 dt.25-06-2012 4 / 4 4 liabilities of the bail bonds furnished earlier in this case. VATS/- (Sheema Ali Khan, J)

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.