Sattan Sahani vs State of Bihar and Others

Rajendra Babu, J.—Leave granted.

On being convicted u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code (for short'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five yearsthe appellant preferred an appeal. The High Court held that the conviction of theappellant should be u/s 326 IPC and not 307 IPC and the sentencewas modified to 3 years rigorous imprisonment. In reaching this conclusion, theHigh Court, after analysing the evidence, held as under:-

"...that appellant Sattan Sahani along with other co-accused formed anunlawful assembly, entered into the house of the informant and assaultedthe injured witnesses including PW 1, Malhu Shahani. Though Malhuwas given 'Bhale' blow in his abdomen by appellant No. 3, Sattan Sahanicausing penetrating wound, but it appears that he had no intention to killhim because he had given only one blow. As such, offence attractsconviction u/s 326 of the Code for voluntarily causing grievoushurt by dangerous weapon to P.W. 1, Malhu Shahani."

The medical evidence in the case is as per the version put forth by Dr. JaidharPrasad Jha, P.W. 10. He stated that on 1.3.1983 at 4 a.m. he examined MalhuShahni and found one penetrating wound 1/2" x 1/10" (depth not probed) on theupper part of the abdomen on midline. He also found one incised wound 1/2" x2/10" into skin deep on the outer side of left eye of Malhu. He also foundswelling 4" x 3" on left thigh and swelling 2" x 1" on left upper arm of Malhu.He opined that the penetrating wound was caused by sharp pointed weapon andincised wound was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the swelling wascaused by hard and blunt substance and the age of the injuries was within 12hours.

It is now contended before us that the appellant had inflicted only oneblow in the spur of the moment of Malhu Shahani in the middle of the abdomen;that the injury caused was only 1/2" x 1/10" (depth not probed) on the middle ofthe abdomen and thus did not affect any vital organ of the injured person nor didit impair the functioning of the injured person in any manner.

For conviction u/s 326 the requirements of Section 320 IPC must be satisfied. Considering the fact that though only one blow was caused by the appellant, from the weapon used namely 'Bhala', it must be inferred that it was likely to cause the death of the injured person and, therefore, the offence is made out u/s 320 IPC and he was rightly convicted under thatprovision.

However, in regard to sentence, we are inclined to take a lenient view in the matter. It is brought to our notice that there was compromise between the parties and on the basis of compromise petition the trial court directed the other accused who were found guilty of the charges under Sections 147 and 148 to be released on executing a bond to keep peace and be of good behavior for a period of one year by invoking Section 360 Cr.P.C. The appellant has already undergone about six months of imprisonment so far. The incident took place about two decades back. In these circumstances, we impose the sentence of imprisonment for the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a further period of three months. On payment of fine, he shall be released forthwith.

The appeal is allowed in part to the extent indicated above.