RAMCHANDRA JHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 4.3.1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge II, Nawada in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 1980 convicting and sentencing the appellant to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/ - and in default to undergo imprisonment for six months under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code (In short "IPC") and on deposit of fine for paying the same to informant. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 1.11.1982 at about 8 AM, an altercation took place between informant Naresh Jha (PW 4) and appellant who are full brothers on account of partition of land and appellant then brought a Garasa from his house and inflicted Garasa injury on the head of informant in the Angan (courtyard) of the house. Occurrence was seen by witnesses. The informant lodged a first information report at Police Station (Ex -hibit -1) and police registered a case under Sections 324 and 307 of IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted, cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Session. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and was convicted and sentenced, as indicated above. After filing of appeal, by order dated 23.4.1992, notice was issued to appellant to show cause why the sentence awarded by trial Court be not enhanced in accordance with law without causing any prejudice to his case in any manner because Section 307 of IPC provides punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and also for fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned but he was simply awarded a fine of Rs. 2,000/ -. The case of appellant before Court below was complete denial of occurrence.

(2.) IN order to prove its case, prosecution examined six witnesses, Shashikant Jha (PW 1) is a formal witness who has proved first information report (Exhibit -1). Naresh Jha (PW 4) is the informant. Tanik Singh (PW 2), Janardan Singh (PW 3) and Balmiki Singh (PW 5) are witnesses to occurrence. Ram Naresh Singh (PW 6) is the Investigating Officer.

(3.) THE evidence of informant and PWs 2, 3 and 5 who are eye witnesses to the occurrence is consistent that appellant inflicted injury on the head of informant by Garasa. There is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. At the same time, I find that informant and other eye witnesses have stated that only one injury was inflicted by informant (sic - -appellant?) on the head of informant by Garasa and there was no repetition of inflicting injury. Admittedly, informant and appellant are full brothers and this is also the own case of prosecution that after an altercation between them on the point of partition, appellant inflicted injury with Garasa on the head of informant. The evidence does not show that appellant had any intention to cause the death of informant but at the same time, it is also true that there was no sudden provocation to appellant prompting him to inflict injury on the head of informant because informant was simply demanding his share in the joint property. It is true that doctor has not been examined in this case but then the evidence of informant and other eye witnesses to the occurrence is consistent that injury was inflicted by appellant to informant with Garasa. There is no dispute on the point that Garasa is an instrument for cutting and it falls within the category of instruments described under Section 324 of Criminal Procedure Code.