AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 07-08-2026
Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the State.
This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2018 and order of sentence dated 30.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2011 / G.R. No. 2782 of 2008 arising out of Bhore P.S. Case No. 208 of 2008 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been convicted under Section 341, 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years under Section 307/34 IPC and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for two months. Furthermore, simple imprisonment for one month under Sections 341 IPC. All the sentences are directed to run concurrently.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 14.12.2008 at about 7:00 A.M., the injured Naem Ansari had gone behind his house near a Pokhara (pond) for easing himself. At that time, according to the prosecution, both the appellants, namely Tajamul Haque and Ajmer Ansari, reached the place armed with Farsa. It is alleged that one of the accused assaulted the injured on his head with the sharp edge of the weapon while the other participated in the assault in furtherance of their common intention. After receiving the blow, the injured fell into the adjoining pond and sustained bleeding injuries on his head. It is further alleged that the accused persons also assaulted him by fists and slaps before fleeing away from the place of occurrence. On alarm being raised, the family members and nearby villagers reached the place, rescued the injured from the pond and immediately shifted him for medical treatment. The motive assigned for the occurrence is an old and persistent dispute relating to agricultural land between the parties.
On the basis of the fardbeyan of the injured recorded on the same day, Bhore P.S. Case No. 208 of 2008 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police took up investigation, inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC and, upon completion of investigation, submitted charge-sheet against both the accused persons. Ultimately, the case was transferred to the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj where charges were framed against these appellants under Sections 341, 307/34 IPC.
In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether five witnesses. P.W. 1, Nizamuddin Ansari, P.W. 2, Hasmuddin Ansari and P.W. 3, Khusbun Ansari claim to be eye witnesses of the occurrence and supported the prosecution case. P.W. 4, Naem Ansari, is the injured informant and P.W. 5, Dr. Lal Babu Prasad, is the medical officer who examined P.W. 4 and found three simple injuries out of which two were caused by sharp-cutting weapon and one injury was caused by hard and blunt substance.
On the other hand, the defence did not adduce any oral evidence.
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails the order of conviction and sentence. He contends that in this case, the Investigating Officer has not been examined and non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the defence of the appellants as he was not able to contradict the evidence of the witnesses and the place and manner of occurrence could not be proved. He further submits that the conviction is wholly unsustainable as the injuries sustained by the injured are found to be simple in nature and there is no allegation of any specific overt act against the appellants. The defence has further emphasized that admitted previous enmity between the parties arising out of land dispute furnished strong motive for false implication. It is lastly submitted that in the facts of the case no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out since, no grievous injury or permanent disability was found by the doctor and life of the informant was saved. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts and the trial court has wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material contradictions and hence, the appellants are fit to be acquitted.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutors for the State have supported the judgment of conviction and submitted that testimony of injured witness carries great evidentiary value and minor contradictions are not sufficient to discard the prosecution case. He argued that merely the fact of simple injuries does not exclude the applicability of Section 307 IPC as informant was assaulted on the head with farsa with an intention of killing. There is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence are justified and legal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the trial court records, this Court finds substantial infirmities in the prosecution case.
I am inclined to accept the proposition that in the facts of the case, no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out but in my view, a clear case under Section 323, 324 IPC would be made out. Considering that the appellants have remained in custody for sufficient long period, the conviction under Section 307 IPC can be converted into Section 323, 324 IPC and their sentences be reduced to the period already undergone by them.
In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 24.08.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 66 of 2011 / G.R. No. 2782 of 2008 arising out of Bhore P.S. Case No. 208 of 2008 is hereby set aside and order of sentence dated 30.08.2018 is modified to the period already undergone by the appellants.
Appellants, above named, are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in connection with this case.
Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.
Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands disposed of.