IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 155 of 1997 (Appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.1997 passed by Additional Sessions Judge-V, Aurangabad, in Sessions Trial No. 72 of 1996/23 of 1996.) ================================================= RAM BALI BHUIYAN, SON OF LATE SURESH @ SURAJ BHUIYAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MADARPUR, P.S. MADANPUR, DISTT. AURANGABAD. .... .... APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT ================================================= Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Suraj Prasad Singh, A.P.P. ================================================= P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH Anjana Prakash, J: The Appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and eight years rigorous imprisonment by the Additional Sessions Judge-V, Aurangabad, in Sesions Trial No. 72 of 1996/23 of 1996 by a judgment dated 21.3.1997. 2. The case of the prosecution according to the Informant Ram Das Ravidas is that on 26.2.1996, the Appellant is said to have given a lathi blow on the person of Jainandan Ravidas on account of which he was grievously injured. Thereafter, he climbed on his chest with intention to commit his murder and pressed his chest on account of which he became unconscious, bleeding from his mouth. 3. During trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses out of whom PW-1 has been declared hostile whereas PW-2 and PW-3 have only partly supported the case of the prosecution. PW-4 is a formal witness. PW-8 is the Informant and an eye witness. PW-5 is the Doctor Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.155 of 1997 dt.07-07-2011 2 who examined the injured whereas PW-7 is the injured himself and PW- 6 is his brother. PW-9 is the Investigating Officer and PW-10 is the other formal witness. 4. On behalf of the defence, one witness was examined on the point of factum that Jainandand Ravidas (PW-7) had fallen down on a stone and sustained injury on his head. PW-8, the Informant has stated in Court that the accused persons had attempted to prevent the injured from verifying a dispute and in course of interception also assaulted him. 5. During trial, the injured PW-7 completely exonerated the co-accused Ram Swaroop thus falsifying his statement before the Police. PW-6, Sudesh Das, the brother of the Informant again implicated the co-accused Ramswaroop but because the evidence was incongruous with regard to him, he was acquitted of the charges. PW-2 and PW-3 were declared hostile because they did not support the major part of the prosecution case. PW-5, the Doctor who examined the injured found the grievous injury on the head of the injured on account of which he was referred to RMCH Ranchi for neuro surgery. However, there is no document with regard to the treatment meted at R.M.C.H. 6. On going through the evidence of the three major witnesses and the Doctor who found corroborative injuries on the person of the injured, there is no room for doubt to disbelieve that the Appellant has assaulted the injured with lathi on his head causing grievous injury. However, from this evidence, it is difficult to deduce that in fact, the Appellant’s intention was to cause death and, therefore, this Court is inclined to convert the conviction of the Appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and his sentence to the period already undergone by him during trial. 7. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.155 of 1997 dt.07-07-2011 3 modifications. 8. However, the Appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Two thousand five hundred) to the injured/his family within four months from the date of receipt of the notice from the Trial Court and in case he fails to do so, a further imprisonment of six months. (Anjana Prakash, J.) Patna High Court, Patna, Dated, 7th July, 2011. NAFR/S.ALI