FUTEHARI RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal (DB) No.427 of 2014 has been filed by original accused nos.1 to 3, namely, Futehari Ram, Makuni Ram and Ramjeet Ram respectively whereas the Criminal Appeal (DB) No.511 of 2014 has been filed by original accused no.4 Suresh Ram. By these appeals, they are challenging the Judgment and Order dtd. 22/4/2014 and 25/4/2014 respectively passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara, in Sessions Trial No.126 of 2013, whereby they all came to be convicted of the offences punishable under Ss. 326 read with 34 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They all are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.50000.00 each for the offence punishable under Sec. 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for six months. They all are awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Sec. 326 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction to pay fine of Rs.50000.00 each and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Substantive sentences are directed to run concurrently by the learned trial court. As both these appeals are challenging the same Judgment and Order passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bhojpur, Ara, they are being disposed of by this common Judgment. For the sake of convenience, the appellants/accused shall be referred to in their original capacity as "an accused".

(2.) Facts in brief projected from the police report leading to the prosecution of the accused can be summarized thus:

(3.) We heard the learned Advocates appearing for the appellants in both appeals. It is argued on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.427 of 2014 that the role attributed to these three accused was limited to that of scuffling and holding P.W.6 Awadhesh Ram. None of them had suffered any injury from the acid and, therefore, their presence on the spot of the incident is having doubtful. It is further argued that considering the role attributed to these three accused persons, the learned trial court was not justified in imposing the sentence of life imprisonment on them. According to the prosecution case, the motive attributed to these accused persons was that of land dispute with the victim. Hence, according to the learned Advocate, these three accused persons are falsely implicated in the crime in question. It is further argued that identification of the accused by the victim is highly doubtful as the incident allegedly took place at 07.00 P.M. and there is no evidence regarding the source of light on the spot of the incident. On behalf of appellant Suresh Ram {in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.511 of 2014}, it is argued that no offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Considering the wound suffered by the victim, it cannot be said that the accused persons intended to kill him. It is further argued that there is no evidence of further medical treatment, if any, given to the victim and the burns sustained by him seems to be superficial and not deep burn wounds. Hence, the evidence regarding intention to kill is absent and, therefore, the offence cannot travel beyond the one punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that even there is no evidence of suffering grievous hurt by the victim. The learned counsel for the appellants in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.427 of 2014 also argued that the offence can be at the most the one punishable under Sec. 326(B) of the Indian Penal Code. Reliance is placed on the Judgments of the Supreme Court in Suryakant Baburao alias Ramrao Phad Versus State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2019 Supreme Court 3629 and the State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Harjeet Singh and Another reported in (2019) 20 SCC 524 and it is contended that sentence imposed upon the appellants is not proper and the offence punishable under Sec. 307 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out.