Ram Kharia vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

Heard Mr. Bibhuti Shankar Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgments passed by the learned courts below are perverse, so far as the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code is concerned. He submits that the maximum punishment in this case has been given under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code for two years and so far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned, the punishment has been given for one year. He also submits that the punishment under Section 3/4 of Prevention of Witch (Daain) Practices Act has already been undergone by the petitioner. He submits that as recorded in para-10 of the trial court's judgment, P.W.-6 is the medical witness who had examined the informant and it has been recorded in para-10 that all the injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. He submits that as the injuries are simple in nature, the petitioner could not have been convicted under Section 325 of Indian Penal Code as the condition precedent for conviction under Section 325 of IPC is that the injury should be grievous. During the course of argument, it was submitted that at best the conviction could be sustained under Section 324 of IPC and not under Section 325 of IPC. He submits that the maximum punishment under Section 325 of IPC is 7 years and the maximum punishment under Section 324 is 3 years and the petitioner has been convicted for two years under Section 325 of IPC and accordingly, if the conviction is converted to offence under Section 324 of IPC, then the sentence may also be modified.

The learned counsel submits that the petitioner has remained in custody for a period from 28.07.2005 to 25.10.2005 at the stage of trial and thereafter at least from 17.10.2014 to 27.02.2015 during the pendency of this revision petition and thereafter, he furnished his bail-bond before the learned court below pursuant to order dated 27.02.2015 passed by this Court only on 04.03.2015 and thus he has remained in custody for more than seven months.

The learned counsel for the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the learned court below has referred to the definition of 'grievous hurt' under Section 320 of Indian Penal Code and the clause eighthly has been taken into consideration by the learned court below to hold the petitioner guilty of offence under Section 325 of IPC. The learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid, the conviction of the petitioner under Section 325 of IPC does not call for any interference. He has also submitted that in case, this Court finds that the conviction is to be modified to conviction under Section 324 of IPC, then also the petitioner has been sentenced only for a period of 2 years and the maximum punishment under Section 324 of IPC is 3 years. Therefore, under any circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner may not be altered considering the nature of allegation and the manner of the offence committed in the present case.

The arguments are concluded.

Post this case on 31.08.2020 for judgment.