The division judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court held that to attract Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, a voluntary hurt should be caused by an instrument of shooting and stabbing or cutting. Definitely use of the said instrument can cause death.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that in the written report of the informant it was alleged that when he was returning home, then, near Railway Crossing, Chotu Kalindi, Bhalu Kalindi, Musru Kalindi and Babulal Kalindi intercepted him. They demanded money to consume liquor. When he refused to give the same, they started assaulted the informant and all were armed with weapons like sword, sticks etc. On raising alarm, informant’s son came running and tried to save his father, upon which all the accused assaulted him also with their respective weapons on the head and body of the informant’s son, as a result of which informant’s son also got head injury. Thereafter, the FIR was registered and the charge sheet was filed under Section Sections 323/34, 341/34, 324/34, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was convicted by the trial court. Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred the present appeal against the order of conviction passed by the lower court.
Contentions of the Appellant
The Appellant contended that no independent witness were examined and the witnesses implicitly stated that there was no other person present at the place of occurrence. It was furthermore contended that the quantity of the witnesses are not important however, quality of the witnesses is important.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court was of the view that in order to attract section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, a voluntary hurt should be caused by the instrument of shooting and stabbing or cutting. Definitely use of the said instrument can cause death. The sword was used by the Appellant.
The court noted that the case doesn’t fall with the section 334 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as there was no grave and sudden provocation from the side of the informant. If the accused tries to extort money from any person and he refused to part away with the same, then if the accused assaults the person from whom, they were trying to extort, it cannot be said that assault was out of grave and sudden provocation.
Based on these considerations, the court was of the opinion that prosecution has proved charge against the appellant Bhalu Kalindi for offence under Section 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code and appellants, namely, Chhotu Kalindi, Musru Kalindi and Babu Lall Kalindi under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court partly allowed the appeal.
Case Title: Chhotu Kalindi V. The State of Jharkhand
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ananda Sen and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 388 of 2013
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Ram Chandra Prasad Sah, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Vishwanath Roy, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
