Moti Lal Hansda vs State of Bihar

R.K. Merathia, J.—Heard Mr. Ravi Prakash, AC for the appellant and Mr. S.K. Dutta, learned APP for the State.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2000 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 130/90, 194/98 convicting the appellant u/s 326, IPC and sentencing him to under go rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of the further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

Before proceeding on the merits, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was juvenile on the date of occurrence. Though the said question was raised before the trial Court during evidence and was supported by a reliable document, by order dated 6.9.1999, the trial Court rejected the said prayer to treat the appellant as juvenile mainly on the ground that he has crossed the age of juvenile during the course of proceeding and that at the time of hearing bail application he himself stated that he was aged more than 16 years, therefore no inquiry was made about his age.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a copy of the certificate issued by CBSE dated 10th August, 1992 duly attested by the Principle of the School was produced to show that appellant''s date of birth was 9th August, 1975. Accordingly, he was aged 15 years and 10 months at the time of alleged occurrence i.e. 10.6.1990. He further submitted that while passing the said order dated 6.9.1999, the learned trial Court has wrongly said that the judgment reported in Devendra Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar, is not applicable. He further submitted that in view of the Special Bench decision in. the case of Gopal Nag and Another Vs. State of Bihar, , this question can be raised eve at the appellate stage and it is to be determined first before going into the merits of the case.

I have gone through the said order dated 6.9.1999, the said certificate produced by the appellant before the trial Court about his date of birth and the case law on the point, I am satisfied on the basis of the said certificate that appellant was juvenile on the date of occurrence. I am of the opinion that now at this stage the matter need not be sent to Juvenile Court, as the appellant has crossed the age of juvenile.

As per the prosecution case, when Sheo Charan Soren went to take back his cycle from the appellant, there was quarrel between them. It is alleged that the appellant assaulted Sheo Charan Soren by "Chhemni" due to which he sustained grievous injury near the left ear on the head.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when there was quarrel over the cycle it cannot be said whether the appellant inflicted the said injury with an intention to cause grievous injury to Sheo Charan Soren. He further pointed out several contradictions in the evidences and submitted that the appellant should be acquitted. Otherwise his career may be affected.

It appears that there was quarrel between the appellant and Sheo Charan Soren, due to which appellant blew "Chhemni" (hasua) which hit at ''kanpati'' of Sheo Charan Soren. The injury was of vital part and was serious, but it cannot be said that it was grievous. As per the PW 4 the injured remained in hospital for twelve days, the paper of which were with the Pradhan. Inspite of chance, appellant did not repeat the blow. It is doubtful whether he intended to inflict such injury. The parties are relatives. Appellant has got no criminal antecedent. He was juvenile at the time of occurrence, I am of the view that benefit of doubt can be given to him. In the result the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appellant is discharged from bail bonds.