Jharkhand High Court
Chandrika Bhuiya vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 February, 2025
Criminal Appeal (S.J.) No. 1505 of 2006
[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated
26.09.2006, passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC), Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1994 / 241 of 2003 ]
Chandrika Bhuiya, Son of Late Agnu Bhuiya, resident of
Chhatabad No. 2, P.S. - Katras, District - Dhanbad.
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Shweta Singh, A.P.P.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 25.11.2024 Pronounced on 12.02.2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Present criminal appeal is directed against the judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.09.2006
passed by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge,
(F.T.C.), Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 148 of 1994 /
241 of 2003, whereby and whereunder, the appellant
has been held guilty and convicted for the offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I.
of five years along with fine of Rs. 200/- with default
stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on
02.10.1992 at about 8:00 P.M., the present appellant
came to the house of the informant under drunken state
in search of his wife and brother, who have taken
shelter at the house of informant due to fear of the
appellant. It is further alleged that the appellant started
quarreling with informant's husband and also gave a
knife blow on his chest with intention to kill him. The
injured was brought to Central Hospital, Titatanr for
treatment and thereafter, he was referred to Central
Hospital, Dhanbad for better treatment, where
fardbeyan of informant Sundarwa Devi was recorded by
S.I. of Katras Police Station and a formal FIR being
Katras P.S. Case No. 418/1992 was registered for the
offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C.
4. The case was investigated and after submission of
charge sheet, cognizance was taken. Thereafter, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial.
After conclusion of trial, the appellant has been held
guilty and sentenced as stated above.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
has submitted that the appellant has falsely been
implicated in this case due to grudge and enmity. The
witnesses examined by prosecution clearly depicted that
the occurrence took place when the appellant, under
drunken state was searching of his wife and brother,
who were not found at house, but were present at the
house of the informant. It is also apparent that scuffle
took place in a sudden manner without any pre-
meditation and the injury sustained by the informant's
husband was not sufficient to cause death in ordinary
course of nature. Therefore, the ingredients of Section
307 of the I.P.C. regarding intention and knowledge is
absolutely lacking in this case.
6. It is further submitted that P.W.-7 Dr. Anjan Kumar Dey
has found two cut incised injuries; one of the left side of
chest on anterior axillary line 1" x ½" x 1" and another
over middle of sternum slightly to the right ½" x ½" x
½". Although, injuries are opined to be grievous in
nature, but no opinion has been specifically given as to
how the injuries were grievous in nature. Admittedly,
there was no operation of the injuries, rather after
treatment about 15 days in the Hospital, the injured
was discharged. This fact was admitted by P.W.-1
injured Sukhdev Bhuiya. Therefore, at best, offence
under Section 324 of the I.P.C. is attracted in this case,
for which, the appellant has remained in custody for
about 09 months.
7. It is further submitted that the occurrence as alleged,
has happened in the year 1992 and more than three
decades have been elapsed, as such, the appellant has
sustained the rigor of trial for about three decades and
has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Hence, the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
of the appellant is liable to be set aside.
8. Per contra, learned APP appearing for the State has
controverted the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf
of the appellant and defended the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant and
has submitted that the appellant has given twice knife
blow on vital part of the body to the injured, showing his
intention / knowledge that the injury caused by such
act is likely to cause death. The injuries are also opined
to be grievous in nature by the conducting Doctor,
therefore, this appeal has no merits, which is fit to be
dismissed.
9. I have gone through the record of the case along with
impugned judgment and order in the light of
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
10. It appears that most important witnesses of this case is
that the injured P.W.-1, who has categorically deposed
that for a trivial issue, when the accused was scuffling
with his wife, bhawo (wife of younger brother) and his
younger brother, who were present at the house of this
witness, the same was intervened and twice knife blow,
in quick succession were inflicted by the appellant.
Thereafter, he was admitted in the Hospital and in
course of treatment, he has remained in the Hospital for
15 days and thereafter, he was discharged. Testimony of
P.W.-1 also finds corroboration from deposition of
P.W.-7 Dr. Anjan Kumar Dey, who has proved the injury
report. The informant (P.W.-4) is none else but the wife
of the injured, who is eye-witness of the occurrence and
proved the contents of her fardbeyan.
11. P.W.-2 Prakash Bhuiya has deposed that he has seen
the injured just after occurrence and came to know
about the incident from the wife of injured.
12. P.W.-3 Krishana Bhuiya is also hearsay witness. He
went to the place of occurrence immediately and saw
the injured.
13. P.W.-5 Mathura Bhuiya has also testified that hearing
hulla, he went to the house of informant and saw
Sukhdeo is there lying on earth on injured condition.
14. P.W.-6 Sagwati Devi is bhawo of the appellant. She has
also supported the prosecution story.
15. P.W.-7 is the Doctor, who has proved the injury report
of the injured Sukhdeo Bhuiya.
16. From oral testimony of the witnesses, the occurrence is
well-proved against the appellant, but so far nature of
injury sustained by the injured in concerned, there is no
specific opinion of P.W.-7 and no reason has been
recorded as to how he has opined the injuries to be
grievous in nature. It is also not mentioned that the
injuries sustained by the P.W.-1 was dangerous to life or
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, if
the attempt might have been successful. Therefore, the
essential ingredients regarding intention and knowledge
as required to constitute offence under Section 307 of
the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. At best, the
case falls under Section 324 of the I.P.C.
17. In view of aforesaid discussions and reasons the
conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section
307 of the I.P.C. is altered and modified to Section 324
of the I.P.C.
18. So far sentence of appellant is concerned, in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the imprisonment
already undergone by him appears to be sufficient
punishment for his guilt. Accordingly, the appellant is
sentenced for the period undergone for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the I.P.C., for which he
is held guilty.
19. In the light of above discussions and reasons, this
appeal is partly allowed, modifying the conviction and
sentence of the appellant as stated above.
20. The appellant is on bail, as such, he is discharged from
the liability of bail bond and sureties is also discharged.
21. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court
record be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated, the 12 t h February, 2025.
Sunil / N.A.F.R.
