Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Chandra Dayal Darvey S/o Jatlu Darvey R/o Village Dhaneshpur Nawadih, P.S.-Jarmundi District – Dumka. … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellants : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Vani Kumari, Adv. For the State : Mr. Jitendra Pandey, Addl. P.P. ------ P R E S E N T Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated- 24.01.2025 By Court:- Heard Mr. Aashish Kumar, learned appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. Jitendra Pandey, learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2007 and 24.08.2007 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dumka in Sessions Case No. 34 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 341/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 2 five years for the offence punishable under Section under Section 307 of the I.P.C. and further a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 14.06.2006 at about 05:00 A.M., the informant Fudni Devi had gone 100 yards north of the village to attend nature’s call. While returning, informant was allegedly attacked by the accused persons namely Chandra Dayal Darvey (appellant) and his mother, Kanti Devi. The accused persons allegedly caught the informant, pressed her neck, attempted to strangulate her with a rope and dragged her. It is further alleged that the appellant assaulted her on both eyes with a sharp cutting weapon. Upon raising an alarm (hulla), the accused persons fled away the scene. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Fudni Devi (P.W.5), Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 94 of 2006 was instituted for the offences under Sections 341/323/307/34 of the I.P.C. 4. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341/323/307/34 of the I.P.C. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 341/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. which were read over and explained to Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 3 him for which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined and several documentary evidence were also adduced by the prosecution. 6. The learned Trial Court after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and after hearing the parties found the appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 341/307/34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. without any cogent and reliable evidence. The injury Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) sustained by the injured person, as per opinion of the Medical Officer (P.W.6) were simple in nature and injury No.(iii) caused due to infection which is not dangerous to life. Hence, at best the offence may fall under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The appellant has remained in custody about one year four months and eleven days during trial of the case and has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Therefore, conviction and sentence of the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is liable to be set aside and this appeal may be allowed with Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 4 modification in sentence to the imprisonment already undergone. 8. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant and defending the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence has submitted that for grabbing the land of informant’s share, the accused appellant tried to kill her by tying her neck with a rope as a result of which informant has lost her eye which is vital part of the body. Therefore, mere nature of injury is not to be looked into, rather it is the intention of the appellant to kill the injured person is required to be taken into consideration and the same has rightly been taken into consideration by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal is devoid of merit and fit to be dismissed. 9. I have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order in light of the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. It appears that the sole informant-cum-injured is P.W.5 viz. Fudni Devi who has deposed that the accused appellant and his mother Kunti Devi tied her neck with a rope and started dragging her as a result of which informant became unconscious. The accused Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 5 appellant assaulted her with a sharp edge weapon on her both eyes. The testimony of P.W.5 is further corroborated by P.W.6 Dr. Rajiv Sharma who has found following injuries on the sole injured: (i) Injury on both eye-brow as cut injury. (ii) Pain and swelling both side face and abrasion. (iii) Cervical injury, bluish mark on neck right side. (iv) Injury on right side upper chest as abrasion. Injury Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) are opined to be simple in nature and injury No.(iii) caused due to infection and it was not dangerous to life. 10. The circumstances under which the occurrence is alleged to have taken place and the nature of injury sustained by the injured clearly goes to show that injury Nos.(i), (ii) and (iv) were simple injury and injury No.(iii) caused due to infection attracting the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. The required intention and knowledge to constitute the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case. 11. In view of above, conviction and sentence of appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is hereby set Cr.A(SJ) No.1253 of 2007 Page | 6 aside and convicted for the offence under Section 323 of the I.P.C. So far offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the I.P.C. are concerned, the appellant had already undergone imprisonment about one year four months and eleven days during pendency of the trial. Therefore, in my considered view, he has sufficiently been punished for his guilt. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed. 12. Appellant is on bail, as such, he shall be discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties shall also be discharged. 13. Pending I.A., if any stands disposed of. 14. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent to the concerned Court forthwith for information and needful. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Sachin