Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.212 of 1998 Against the judgment dated 17. 04. 1998 and order of sentence dated 20. 04. 1998 passed by Shri Uday Shankar, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Case No. 213 of 1989. 1. Ramashray Singh, son of Gango Singh. 2. Fulena Singh, son of Ramashray Singh. Both resident of Village- Ramdiri, Nakti Tola, P.S. Matihani, District- Begusarai. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. WITH Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 219 of 1998 Against the judgment dated 17. 04. 1998 and order of sentence dated 20. 04. 1998 passed by Shri Uday Shankar, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, in Sessions Case No. 213 of 1989. 1. Hare Ram Singh, son of Luchchi Singh. 2. Debu Singh, son of Late Baijnath Singh. Both resident of Village- Ramdiri, Nakti Tola, P.S. Matihani, District- Begusarai. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. = In CR. APP (SJ) No. 212 of 1998) For the Appellants. : Mrs. Rina Sinha, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. In CR. APP (SJ) No. 219 of 1998 For the Appellants : Mr. Arun Kumar Tripathi, Amicus Curiae. For the Respondent State : Mr. Sujit Kumar Singh, A.P.P. PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD Gopal Prasad, J. Both the appeals have been heard together and disposed of by a common judgment as both the appeals 2 arises out of same judgment dated 17. 04. 1998, passed in Sessions Case No. 213 of 1989 by Shri Uday Shankar, Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai, by which he has been convicted the appellants for offence under Section 307 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and has been sentenced appellants Fulena Singh, Hare Ram Singh and Debu Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the charge punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. Further, the appellant Ramashray Singh has sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Further Fulena Singh and Debu Singh have sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years for the charge punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. All the sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution as alleged with regard to construction of Tatti and there was verbal altercation followed by physical altercation and there was firing causing injury to the prosecution party. 3. On the basis of Fardbeyan, F.I.R. was lodged. After investigation charge sheet submitted. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of 3 Sessions. After commitment, charge framed and nine witnesses have been examined in the prosecution case. However, out of nine witnesses, P.W. 2, 3 and 4 are formal witnesses, P.W. 5 and 6 are the injured, P.W. 8, is the informant and P.W. 9 is the Docrtor. 4. However, P.W. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have supported the prosecution case, out of which P.W. 5 and 6 are injured and P.W. 9 is the Doctor. The I.O. has not been examined in this case. However, P.W. 9, is the Doctor who had found the following injury on the person of Sunil Thakur. I. Lacerated wound on 2nd and 3rd and 4th toe of right foot with terminal phalansx missing due to injury. II. Lacerated wound on right big toe 1”x 1/3”x 1/3”. III. Lacerated wound on right little toe 1/2"x 1/3”x1/3” There was blood oozing from the wounds. The nature of injury has been defined as grievous caused by some fire arms age of injury within six hours. The injured Shobhakhant Thakur was also examined by the Doctor injury report has also been proved as Ext. 4/1 as lacerated wound on right forearm in anterior aspect 1”x 1/2" skin deep. The type of injury has been defined as 4 simple caused by hard blunt substance within six hours. 5. However taking into consideration of the injury report, though, injuries by fire arm, but not on vital part of the body, but on foot and toe, though stated to be grievous. However, injury has been shown only to be lacerated. However, there is no report that injury was danger to life. Moreover, having regard to the fact that injuries are not on vital part of the body and none of the injuries either singly or cumulative effect of all the injuries having been taken together does not show that injuries were inflicted with intention to kill and hence conviction and sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. does not stand and hence order of conviction and sentence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not sustainable and set aside. 6. Having regard to the fact that witnesses have supported the prosecution case about the occurrence and injury and hence order of conviction and sentence can well be inferred under Section 325 I.P.C. However, injury does not confirm to Section 320 I.P.C. as injury have been shown to be lacerated found on the toe and other injury is on the hand which is simple by hard blunt 5 substance. 7. Having regard to the fact that occurrence is of the year 1987 and the appellants have suffer a lot the rigor of prosecution and appeal for such a long period and even after conviction they have remained in jail for about 3-4 months. 8. Hence to end of justice shall meet under by sentencing the appellants of both the appeals for the period already undergone and hence both the appeals are allowed in part. Patna High Court The 27th July, 2011. NAFR/m.p. ( Gopal Prasad, J.)