LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Monday, February 1, 2021

set aside the conviction and sentence of these two appellants under Section 307 of the Code. We hold so primarily on the basis of depositions of the three medical experts, PW­13 (Dr. Shishir Kumar Singh Munda), PW­14 (Dr. Dhananjay Rajak) and PW­15 (Dr. Narendra Kumar Das). Opinion of PW­13, who examined Premchand and Kasi Ram, found both their injuries to be simple, formed of lacerated wound. In examining Premchand, PW­14’s opinion as regards nature of injury was the same. It was simple injury. Premchand’s CT scan, as explained by PW­15, did not show any evidence of intracerebral hemmorhage or fracture. He also found such injury to be simple. Considering the weapons of assault Mihir and Prabhat were meant to have had used in inflicting such injuries, and the nature of injuries they caused on Kasi Ram and Premchand, we do not think the two appellants had the intention or knowledge that their acts could have had caused death of Kasi Ram or Premchand. We also do not find any evidence of 25 commission of offence under Section 341 of the Code. None of the eyewitnesses has stated in course of their examination that Mihir or Prabhat had wrongfully confined them. The appellants are accordingly acquitted of charges under all the aforesaid provisions

Non­Reportable

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.22­23 OF 2021

    (Arising out of Petition for Special Leave to

Appeal (Criminal) Nos.8973­8974 of 2019)

         

MIHIR GOPE ETC.  …APPELLANTS 

 VERSUS 

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND             …RESPONDENT 

     J U D G M E N T

ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.

Leave granted.

2. Anil Mahto and Jatu Mahto had died from injuries

received   in   consequence   of   assaults   on   them   on   20th

August, 2005 over a land related dispute. Certain other

members of the appellant’s family were also injured on

account of assault as a result of the same dispute. The

appellants   are   two   sons   of   one   Manohar   Gope,   with

1

whom the dispute had arisen. The cause of the dispute

with   the   members   of   the   deceased   victims’   family   is

specifically   related   to   the   construction   of   a   hut.   The

prosecution’s case is that certain members of the Gope

family were the assailants. The appellants before us are

Mihir Gope (in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.8973   of   2019)   and   Prabhat   Gope   (in   Petition   for

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8974 of 2019). They

have   been   held   guilty   by   the   Trial   Court   (Additional

Sessions   Judge,   Fast   Track   Court­IV,   Bokaro)   for

committing offences under Sections 341, 307, 325, and

302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

(the Code). The Trial Court sentenced the two appellants

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for committing

offence   under   Section   302   of   the   Code,   simple

imprisonment for a month in relation to offence under

Section 341 of the Code, rigorous imprisonment for 5

years for offence under Section 325 of the Code, and

rigorous   imprisonment   for   7   years   for   offence   under

2

Section   307   of   the   Code.   The   sentences   had   been

directed   to   run   concurrently   by   the   Trial   Court.

Altogether five persons including the two appellants were

tried for the offences initiated by a fardbeyan of one Kasi

Ram   Mahto   on   20th  August   2005,   being   the   date   of

occurrence   of   the   offence.   In   the   depositions   as

reproduced in the paperbook, he has been referred to in

some places as Kari Ram. Similarly, the deceased victim

Jatu Mahto has been referred to as Jadu, Jethu, Jattu

and Indu by different witnesses. We shall, however, refer

to them as Kasi Ram and Jatu in this judgment, ignoring

these discrepancies. None of the parties has raised any

question or dispute on this count.  On the basis of the

said fardbeyan, First Information Report was registered

on the same date in Pindrajora police station of Bokaro

district in the State of Jharkhand. In this judgment, we

shall also be referring to the accused persons as also

victims and members of their family by their first names

only. Kasi Ram himself was injured in the assault. He

3

was examined as Prosecution Witness no.12 in the trial.

Major part of the assault on the members of the Mahto

family,   particularly   on   Anil,   Jatu   and   Kasi   Ram   was

attributed   to   Manohar   in   the   fardbeyan   and   the

prosecution   witnesses   have   broadly   corroborated   the

content of the fardbeyan. The High Court, in appeals by

the   four   convicted   accused   persons,   sustained   the

judgment of conviction and orders of sentences of these

two appellants. The judgment of conviction of one of the

accused persons, Usha Devi (wife of Mihir), was set aside

by the High Court. The decision of the High Court was

delivered on 10th October, 2018.

3. The   fardbeyan   was   recorded   at   Bokaro   General

Hospital (BGH). It was disclosed therein that Kasi Ram,

the informant, with his wife Puna Devi had reached the

place of occurrence at Obra Mouza from their place of

residence at Bokaro on receiving a phone call from his

brother   Premchand   (PW­11).   The   phone   call   conveyed

4

that Manohar had constructed a hut on the land of the

informant.     Jatu,   Anil,   Premchand,   Puranchand,

Dakshineshwar, Mukteshwar and Vijay­ all members of

the   Mahto   family   had   also   reached   the   place   of

occurrence when Kasi Ram and Puna Devi reached the

spot. On reaching the place of occurrence at about 8 a.m.

on that date, they found a hut with dali­khapra (earthen

roof­tiles) on the land in question. Substantial evidence

was led before the Trial Court on title or ownership of the

land on which the hut was constructed. But that factor is

not of much relevance so far as the present appeals are

concerned,   except   that   the   construction   of   the   hut

formed the genesis of the dispute and could be related to

motive of the crime. Manohar, the main assailant along

with his sons­ Mihir, Prabhat and Kailash were also at

the   place   of   occurrence,   as   it   transpires   from   the

evidence of Kasi Ram and other prosecution witnesses.

There was exchange of words mainly between Manohar

and Kasi Ram, after which Manohar had attacked Anil on

5

his head with an iron rod, as a result of which Anil

collapsed on the ground and became unconscious.   On

the   informant’s   attempt   to   rescue   Anil,   he   was   also

assaulted by Manohar on his hands, head, and back. As

per prosecution evidence, the three sons of ManoharMihir  (first   appellant),   Prabhat  (second   appellant)   and

Kailash were supplied with a tangi (a variant of axe),

sawal (crowbar) and a gupti (a longish sword) by Usha

Devi.   Before   the   assault   started,   Kasi   Ram   wanted

Manohar to go to the police station with him, presumably

to sort out the dispute, but Manohar refused to go there.

Manohar had asserted that it was his land. It was at that

stage Manohar assaulted Anil on his head with the iron

rod.  As regards the sequence in which the assault took

place, Kasi Ram’s evidence is that when “Indu went to tie

Anil with towel then Manohar assaulted him on head

with rod and he became injured”.  The name “Indu”, as

has been recorded in the deposition of Kasi Ram (as it

appears in the paperbook) obviously refers to Jatu. In the

6

sequence of events narrated by the other eye­witnesses,

being PW­2, PW­3, PW­4, PW­5, PW­7 and PW­11, this

particular victim has been referred to as Jatu. 

4. Prosecution   evidence   was   accepted   by   the   Trial

Court   on   the   aspect   of   description   of   assault   by   the

accused   persons  which  resulted   in  death  of  Anil   and

Jatu   and   also   resulted   in   injuries   to   Kasi   Ram,

Premchand and Puranchand. On his plea of juvenility,

the   case   of   Kailash   was   separated   and   sent   to   the

Juvenile Justice Board. Usha Devi was let off by the High

Court on the reasoning that there was no allegation of

assault by her. Anil had passed away on 20th  August,

2005 itself at BGH, whereas Jatu passed away on the

next day, i.e.  21st  August, 2005. The injured  persons

were initially taken to Chas General Hospital and after

initial treatment, referred to BGH.  The former has been

described   as   the   referral   hospital   in   course   of   the

proceedings before the Trial Court and the High Court. 

7

5. In the First Information Report, Manohar and his

three sons, Mihir, Prabhat and Kailash were named as

accused persons. After investigation, charge­sheet was

submitted arraigning four of them as also Usha Devi as

accused persons.   Records pertaining to Kailash were

sent   to   the   Juvenile   Justice   Board.     All   four   were

convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by the Trial

Court. We have already indicated the sentence imposed

on them.  

6. The   prosecution   examined   altogether   sixteen

witnesses. Seven among them, being Puna Devi (PW­2),

Puranchand   (PW­3),   Vijay   Kumar   (PW­4),   Mukteshwar

(PW­5), Dakshineshwar (PW­7),  Premchand (PW­11) and

Kasi Ram (PW­12) deposed as eye­witnesses. The autopsy

surgeon Dr. Pramod Kumar, who was examined as PW­9

attributed the cause of death of the two deceased victims

to severe head injuries and excessive bleeding leading to

shock and cardio respiratory failure. In the case of Jatu,

8

blood coagulate was found in pia and dura mater of skull

leading   to   shock   and   cardio   respiratory   failure.   On

dissection of Anil’s skull, blood clots in “profuse amount”

were   found   in   between   pia   and   dura   mater,   i.e.   the

membranes that envelop the brain and spinal cord and

separate them from the walls of their bony cases (skull

and vertebral column). External injury of Anil, as per

deposition of PW­9 was “lacerated wound with fracture of

occipital bone size 4½”

 X 1” bone deep”. Jatu’s external

injuries were “fracture of occipital bone with swelling;

fracture of left parietal bone with lacerated wound………”.

PW­13, Dr. Shishir Kumar Singh Munda had examined

Premchand   (PW­11,   injured   witness)   and   found   his

injuries to be simple in nature caused by hard blunt

object. There were lacerated wounds on his left hand and

scalp, right fronto parietal region 2” X 1” X 1/3”. The two

other medical witnesses were Dr. Dhananjay Rajak (PW14) and Dr. Narendra Kumar Das (PW­15). Dr. Rajak had

examined Anil and Jatu on the same day at BGH.   He

9

found,  in  case  of  Anil, a  stitched  wound  on  occipital

parietal area 4” long.   In case of Jatu, Dr. Rajak has

deposed that he found “1 stitched wound on occipital

area 3” long”.  The injuries in both cases were attributed

to   hard     blunt   object   by   the   PW­14.     In   case   of

Premchand, he referred to the following injuries in his

statements made in course of examination :­

“i. contusion left shoulder 3” X 1”

ii. contusion scapular left 8” X 1”

iii. contusion scapular region right 8” X 1/2”. 

Another contusion 6” X 1”

iv. stitched wound left hand.”

The injuries of Premchand were found to be simple

in nature caused by hard blunt substance by Dr. Rajak.

Dr. Narendra Kumar Das (PW­15) was the head of the

department of Neurosurgery at BGH at the material point

of time. He assessed the injuries of Anil and Jatu to be

grievous. Injury of Premchand, according to him, was

simple in nature and possibly caused by a hard and

blunt   object.     So   far   as   injuries   of   Kasi   Ram   are

10

concerned,   Dr.   Shishir   Kumar   Singh   Munda   (PW­13)

deposed that he had  lacerated wound on right parieatal

region and on his right palm. According to this medical

witness,   both   the   injuries   were   simple   in   nature   and

caused by hard blunt objects. 

7. The   assessment   of   injuries   of   Jatu,   Anil   and

Premchand by Dr. Narendra Kumar Das would appear

from the following part of his deposition: ­

“1. On 20.08.05 I was posted at BGH in

same capacity. Patient Mr. Jethu Mehto

was   seen   and   treated   by   me.   He   was

treated for severe head injury.

2.  CT scan of brain was done. 

CT scan no. 22305 dated 20.08.05. 

CT   scan   shows   multiple   intracelebral

hemorrhage   in   the   left   temproperital

region with fracture of left parital bone.

The nature of injury was grievous. This

report   is   prepared   and   signed   by   me.

Mark it as Ext. 7/5. 

3. The injury may be caused by hard and

blunt object. 

4. On the same day I had examined Anil

Kr.   Mahto.   His   hospital   number   was

13538.   He   was   treated   for   severe   head

injury. CT scan brain was done. Number

is 22306 dt. 20.08.05.   CT Scan shows

11

multiple intra cerebral hemorrhage with

brain edema and fracture of left parital

and occipital bone. Nature of injury was

grievous   possible   by   hard   and   blunt

object. 

5. This   report   is   prepared   by   me   and

signed by me mark it as Ext. 7/6.

6. On   the   same   day   I   had   examined

Premchand   Mahto.   He   was   treated   for

multiple injuries.

i. Head injury : CT Scan brain was

done.   Number   is   23307   dt.

20.08.05.   CT   scan   shows   no

evidence   of   intra   cerebral

hemorrhage   or   fracture.   The

nature was simple.

ii.   Compound   fracture   of   IInd

metacarpal bone left hand. Nature

was grievous possibly by hard and

blunt   object.   This   report   is

prepared by me. Mark it as Ext.

7/7. 

7. The   injury   on   the   person   of   Jethu

Mahto may be caused if someone fall on

heavy   object.   There   is   no   CT   Scan

separate with this report. On the person

of   Anil   Mahto   also   the   injury   may   be

caused   due   to   fall,   so   with   Premchand

Mahto.”

(quoted verbatim)

8. The   depositions   of   the   eyewitnesses   for   the

prosecution broadly gives the description of events that

12

corresponds   with   the   fardbeyan,   but   there   are

discrepancies on the role of each of the accused persons

in effecting specific strikes on the victims individually.

Prosecution   also   sought   conviction   on   the   basis   of   a

confessional statement of Manohar. Prosecution case is

that Manohar’s statement led to the recovery of a sawal

and   a   stick   from   his   house.   There   were   two   seizure

witnesses   Laxmi   Devi   (PW­1)   and   Gulichand   Mahto

(PW­10).  The latter was presented by the prosecution as

seizure   witness   of   blood­soaked   soil.   At   this   stage,

however, his deposition has insignificant impact on these

appeals   as   prosecution   has   relied   upon   other   direct

evidences, primarily eyewitness account and evidence of

the medical practitioners, and not much turns in these

appeals on recovery of blood­soaked earth.  Laxmi Devi is

the   wife   of   Prabhat   Gope.     She   was   presented   as   a

witness by the prosecution on seizure of the sawal and

the   stick   from   Manohar’s   house.   In   her   deposition,

13

however, she has stated that the paper on which she had

signed was blank. 

9. Two witnesses were examined by the defence, Netai

Gope   and   Shambhu   Gope.   Both   of   them   deposed   as

eyewitnesses. As recorded in the Trial Court’s judgment,

they sought to attribute the injuries to acts on the part of

the informant and his family members only. It was stated

by   them   that   the   informant   and   his   brothers   had

gathered near the hut armed with several weapons, the

likes of which we have already referred to. When they

tried to pull down the tiled hut, the defence witnesses

stated, some of the roof tiles fell on the members of the

informant’s side and that was the cause of the injuries.

The   appellants   sought   to   buttress   this   defence   by

drawing our attention to the depositions of PW­9, PW­13

and   PW­15,   all   medical   professionals.   They   stated   in

their examination that the injuries treated or analysed by

them could be caused due to fall. But this opinion of the

14

medical practitioners was on probable cause. The story of

accidental   injuries   caused   by   the   informant’s   side

themselves however was not believed by either the Trial

Court or the High Court.  We do not find any flaw in the

reasoning of the two courts of fact on this aspect. 

10. The question, in the given context, which falls for

determination is as to whether these two appellants can

be convicted under the aforesaid provisions of the Code.

It is a fact that all the eyewitnesses were related to the

victims, but for that very reason we cannot disbelieve

their version, particularly since the Trial Court and the

High Court found no reason to reject their evidence. The

story of the defence that the injuries of the victims were

unintentionally   inflicted   by   falling   tiles   when   the

members   of   the   victims’   family   were   dismantling   the

structure does not inspire confidence. The prosecution

witnesses   have   been   consistent   and   uniform   in   their

15

version   that   it   was   Manohar   and   his   sons   who   had

caused the injuries. 

11.  The appellants before us are Mihir and Prabhat. The

evidence of the seven prosecution witnesses, who have

deposed as eyewitnesses, being Puna Devi (PW­2), wife of

Kasi   Ram   (the   informant),   Puranchand   (PW­3),   an

injured witness, Vijay Kumar (PW­4), Mukteshwar (PW5), Dakshineshwar (PW­7), Premchand (PW­11) and Kasi

Ram (PW­12) are uniform in that Manohar had dealt the

first blow to Anil, followed by a blow on Kasi Ram and

thereafter on Jatu at the time the latter was attending to

injured Anil. The seven witnesses are also uniform in

saying   that   Manohar   dealt   the   blows   to   these   three

victims using an iron rod.

12.  So far as Mihir and Prabhat are concerned, evidence

of Kasi Ram (PW­12) is that Manohar assaulted Anil first,

then him and thereafter Jatu. He, in his deposition has

referred to sons of Manohar as “boys of Manohar”, and

16

assault by them has been specified to be on Puranchand

and Premchand.   PW­2 has also ascribed the blows on

Anil and Jatu to Manohar. At the same time, she has

stated that Mihir had assaulted Anil and Jatu on their

heads. Assault on Anil and Jatu has also been ascribed

to Prabhat. PW­2 and PW­5 have stated that Usha Devi,

whose conviction was set aside by the High Court had

supplied an axe to Mihir, sawal to Prabhat, and a gupti

to Kailash.  Puna Devi has deposed that Mihir as well as

Prabhat   had   assaulted   Anil,   Jatu,   Premchand,

Puranchand and Kasi Ram (her husband­the informant).

Puranchand’s (PW­3) evidence is that Mihir, Prabhat and

Kailash assaulted Anil with an axe on the back of his

head.   He also deposed that all the four accused had

assaulted   Anil,   Premchand   and   Jatu.     To   Mihir,   he

attributed assault by an axe. Vijay Kumar (PW­4) has

attributed collective assault to three sons of Manohar on

Jatu, Premchand and Puranchand.   He also referred to

strikes   by   Manohar   on   Anil,   Kasi   Ram   and   Jatu.

17

Evidence of Mukteshwar (PW­5) is that Mihir assaulted

Anil   and   Jatu   with   the   axe   on   their   heads   whereas

Prabhat with another brother assaulted Premchand and

Puranchand.   Dakshineshwar’s   (PW­7)   narration   of   the

assault in his deposition is also broadly similar whereas

Premchand (PW­11) has stated that Jatu was attacked by

Mihir and Manohar using a tangi and Puranchand and

himself were attacked by Kailash and Prabhat with iron

rod. The depositions of the prosecution witnesses thus

are not uniform on the aspect of the role of these two

appellants   in   assaulting   Anil   and   Jatu.   Usha   Devi,

against whom allegation was of supply of weapons to

Mihir, Prabhat and Kailash, has been acquitted by the

High Court.

13. Learned counsel for the appellants has stressed on

the fact that injury records of the referral hospital were

not produced or made exhibits at the stage of the trial.

But   from   the   depositions   of   the   four   medical

18

practitioners,   injuries   of   Anil,   Jatu,   Kasi   Ram   and

Premchand are revealed.  There is no medical evidence of

any injury having been caused to Puranchand. While we

analyse the evidence relating to injuries of Anil and Jatu,

we find that the autopsy surgeon (PW­9) found only one

injury on the head of Anil being fractured occipital bone.

This was a lacerated wound. So far as Jatu is concerned,

we   find   from   his   deposition   that   he   had   a   fractured

occipital bone with swelling and fracture of left parietal

bone with lacerated wound. Dr. Shishir Kumar Singh

Munda   (PW­13)   had   examined   Premchand   and   found

lacerated wound on his left hand as also on his scalp in

the right fronto parietal region.  He also examined Kasi

Ram and found two injuries, lacerated wound on right

parietal region and lacerated wound on the right palm.

Dr. Dhananjay Rajak (PW­14) had examined Anil on the

day of occurrence at about 11.30 a.m. in the casualty

department of BGH. His deposition also reveals that Anil

had a stitched wound on the occipital parietal area.  On

19

Jatu, he found a 3” long stitched wound on the occipital

area.   As regards injuries of Premchand, he observed

contusions and we have referred to his observations in

earlier part of this judgment. Dr. Narendra Kumar Das

(PW­15) had examined Jatu, and in his deposition he has

stated that his CT scan showed multiple intracerebral

haemorrhage   in   the   left   temporoparietal   region   with

fracture of the left parietal bone.   As regards probable

cause of the injuries, PW­9 stated that injury to Anil

could be caused if he had fallen on a hard surface. Jatu’s

could have been caused if some heavy blunt object fell on

his head.  Cause of the other injury to Jatu, according to

him, could occur if someone smashed on small or heavy

substance.   Dr.   Narendra   Kumar   Das   (PW­15)   on   the

other hand interpreted Jatu’s CT scan in the following

manner:­ 

“CT   scan   shows   multiple   intracelebral

hemorrhage in the left lemproperietal region

with fracture of left partial bone…”

20

14. It   would   be   apparent   from   the   evidence   of   the

medical practitioners that there was only one injury on

Anil’s head whereas on Jatu’s head, there is a probability

that he suffered two injuries. But the injuries on Jatu’s

head cannot be said to have been caused by either axe or

tangi,   which   are   sharp   edged   weapons.     Even   if   we

proceed on the basis that both axe and tangi have blunt

sides and such blunt sides were used to strike, that very

fact   cannot   establish   involvement   of   both   Mihir   and

Prabhat in striking Anil and Jatu. Thus, we do not think

the Trial Court and the High Court had rightly concluded

on involvement of Mihir and Prabhat in assault of Anil

and   Jatu   so   as   to   implicate   them   for   murder   under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of the code. The eye

witnesses’ accounts, as we have already observed shows

element of exaggeration and inconsistency in implicating

both Mihir and Prabhat for their strikes on Jatu. There is

apparent   inconsistency  in  the  eye   witness   account   in

describing the assaults by these two appellants on Anil

21

and Jatu.  PW­2 has attributed assault on both Anil and

Jatu   to   Manohar   and   all   his   sons.   This   is   a   very

generalised description. PW­3 has stated that Manohar,

Mihir and Prabhat (collectively referring to them with the

pronoun “they”) had assaulted Jatu. P.W. 4’s evidence on

assault against Anil and Jatu is not specific, but general.

PW­5 has stated that Mihir had assaulted Anil and Jatu,

apart from Manohar’s strikes.  PW­7’s deposition is that

both Mihir and Manohar struck Jatu.  PW­11 attributes

strike   by   Mihir   on   Jatu   but   he   has   not   implicated

Prabhat in any form of assault on Anil or Jatu. Thus, if

we compare the number of injuries on Anil and Jatu as it

transpires   from   the   evidence   of   medical   practitioners,

which is three at the most, they do not match with the

number of strikes made by Manohar, Mihir and Prabhat,

as stated on oath by these witnesses. In our opinion, we

cannot rely on the account of assault given by these

witnesses to the extent they relate to strikes by Mihir and

Prabhat.   Barring   PW­12,   the   account   of   the   incident

22

narrated by the other eye­witnesses tend to be based on

overall   impression   of   the   strikes   rather   than   factual

narration of events. We consider it safer to rely on the

evidence   of   PW­12,   who   has   given   specific   and

trustworthy account of the individual assaults. We do not

think the prosecution  has been  able to prove  beyond

reasonable doubt involvement of these two appellants,

Mihir and Prabhat in delivering the blows to Anil and

Jatu.

15.   We   also   find   that   though   there   were   assaults   by

Manohar, Mihir and Prabhat prosecution has failed to

establish   on   the   basis   of   evidence   that   these   two

appellants   shared   common   intention   with   Manohar.

Their strikes on the victims can be segregated from those

made by Manohar, as it transpires from evidence. Neither

Mihir nor Prabhat could be held to have been involved in

assault   on   Anil   and   Jatu,   which   forms   the   basis   of

23

conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the

Code.

16. Relying on a decision of a coordinate Bench, Manoj

Kumar   vs  State   of  Himachal  Pradesh  [(2018) 7 SCC

327], it was urged on behalf of the appellants that the

offence   of   the   appellants   could   be   brought   within

exception 4 to Section 300 of the Code and Part II of

Section 304 thereof, could be applied to the appellants.

But having regard to what we have held, the ratio of that

decision does not apply in the facts of this case. 

17. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment of conviction

of   Mihir   and   Prabhat   under   Section   302   read   with

Section 34 of the Code and the order of sentence under

the aforesaid provisions is also set aside.   As we find

from evidence of the medical professionals that injuries

on   Kasi   Ram   and   Premchand   were   simple   in   nature,

judgment   of   the   High   Court   on   their   conviction   and

sentence under Section 325 of the Code is also set aside.

24

We also set aside the conviction and sentence of these

two appellants under Section 307 of the Code.  We hold

so   primarily   on   the   basis   of   depositions   of   the   three

medical   experts,   PW­13   (Dr.   Shishir   Kumar   Singh

Munda), PW­14 (Dr. Dhananjay Rajak) and PW­15 (Dr.

Narendra Kumar Das).  Opinion of PW­13, who examined

Premchand and Kasi Ram, found both their injuries to be

simple,   formed   of   lacerated   wound.     In   examining

Premchand, PW­14’s opinion as regards nature of injury

was the same.   It was simple injury.   Premchand’s CT

scan, as explained by PW­15, did not show any evidence

of intracerebral hemmorhage or fracture.  He also found

such injury to be simple.   Considering the weapons of

assault Mihir and Prabhat were meant to have had used

in inflicting such injuries, and the nature of injuries they

caused on Kasi Ram and Premchand, we do not think

the two appellants had the intention or knowledge that

their acts could have had caused death of Kasi Ram or

Premchand.   We   also   do   not   find   any   evidence   of

25

commission of offence under Section 341 of the Code.

None of the eyewitnesses has stated in course of their

examination   that   Mihir   or   Prabhat   had   wrongfully

confined them.  The appellants are accordingly acquitted

of charges under all the aforesaid provisions.

18. In our opinion, however, there is sufficient evidence

against Mihir and Prabhat of voluntarily causing hurt by

the instruments we have referred to.  We have discussed

the evidence based on which we come to this conclusion.

We hold both the appellants guilty of committing offence

under Section 324 of the Code.  We impose sentence of

three years rigorous imprisonment on both Mihir and

Prabhat   for   committing   offence   under   the   aforesaid

provision.

19. In the event the appellants or any one of them have

served   out   the   sentence   of   three   years   of   rigorous

imprisonment imposed on them in this judgment, such

appellant or the appellants, as the case may be, shall be

26

set free forthwith, unless the custody of the appellants or

any one of them is required in any other case. Otherwise,

the appellants or any one of them, as the case may be,

shall serve out the remaining term.

20.  The appeals are partly allowed, in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. 

…..……………..J.

(N.V. Ramana)

..…..……………..J.

(Surya Kant)

……..……………..J.

(Aniruddha Bose)

New Delhi,

Dated: January 8, 2021

27