Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 1684 of 2006 [Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 11.12.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No.209 of 1999]. 1. Navin Kumar Tiwary, Son of Sri Dhrupdeo Tiwary, Resident of Sector IX-B, Street 16 Quarter No.1247, P.S. – Harla, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand). 2. Mithilesh Kumar, Son of Laxmi Prasad, Resident of Sector IX-B, Street-16, Quarter No. 1257, P.S.- Harla, District – Bokaro (Jharkhand). … … Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ….. For the Appellants : Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, A.P.P. ….. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA JUDGMENT Dated 27th January, 2025 By Court: Heard Mr. Yadunandan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Naveen Kumar Ganjhu, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State. 2. Above named appellants have preferred this criminal appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.12.2006 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Bokaro in Sessions Trial No. 209 of 1999, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been held guilty for the offence under Sections 341, 324 and 307 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for seven years under Sections 307/34 of the I.P.C. with fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the aforesaid sections with default stipulation. Both the appellants have also been sentenced to undergo two years R.I. under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. However, no separate sentence has been passed under Sections 341/34 of the I.P.C. and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.07.1997, the informant was returning with his friend Jitendra Kumar Singh @ Munna after taking seat in a trekker at Patel Chowk and when they reached near a field in II flat at Sector-IX-B, Navin Kumar called him from behind. The informant saw that Ashok Kumar, Yogendra Kumar, Mithilesh Kumar and some other persons were there. When the informant reached to accused Navin on his call and asked as to why he has been called for, then they started assaulting him by means of sword. Accused Navin assaulted him by sword at his left ear. Mithilesh inflicted injury on his neck and head by means of sword. Other accused persons also assaulted him on various parts of the body and he sustained bleeding injuries. On raising hulla by informant and his friend, the accused persons fled away and thereafter, the informant was taken to B.G.H. for his treatment. 4. On the basis of above stated fardbeyan of informant, FIR being Harla P.S. Case No. 74 of 1997 was registered against the four named accused persons and some unknown miscreants for the offence under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 34 of the I.P.C. 5. After completion of investigation, the I.O. of the case has submitted charge sheet against the four accused persons including appellants. It is relevant to mention here that out of four charge-sheeted accused persons, only two accused persons have faced trial in this case. The charges were framed for the offence punishable under Sections 341/34, 324/34 and 307/34 of the I.P.C. 6. In order to substantiate the charges leveled against accused persons, altogether 06 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. 7. Apart from oral evidence of ocular witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced on behalf of prosecution:- Exhibit-1 : Signature of informant on fardbeyan. Exhibit-2 : Injury Report of informant. Exhibit-3 : Fardbeyan. Exhibit-3/1 : Forwarding on Fardbeyan. 8. The case of defence is that appellants are innocent persons and have committed no offence at all. They have been falsely implicated in this case. However, following documentary evidences were adduced on behalf of defence:- Exhibit-A : C.C. of order sheet (seven sheets) of S.T. No. 209A/1999. Exhibit-B : C.C. of deposition of P.W.-1 of S.T. No. 209A/1999. 9. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there was previous enmity between the parties due to teasing of a girl. The I.O. of this case has also not been examined, which prejudice the defence of appellants. The injury sustained by the informant in this case, although has been opined to be caused by sharp cutting pointed instrument which may be sword, but the nature of injuries is opined to be simple. The injuries sustained by the informant are on the vital part of the body, but simple in nature, as such, no offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is constituted in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as there was no intention / knowledge as required to constitute the said offence. Hence, conviction for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. of the appellants is fit to be set aside. Accordingly, at best, the appellants may be held guilty for the offence under Sections 341/34, 324/34 of the I.P.C. for which they have been sufficiently punished during the course of trial. 11. In alternative, it is submitted that the appellant no.1 has remained in custody for about 2 years and 7½ months and appellant no. 2 has remained in custody for about 2 years 10½ months during course of trial of the case and after conviction. It is also submitted that it is first offence of the appellants and they have never been convicted for any other offence at all. The occurrence took place in the year 1997 due to previous enmity and more than two decades have been elapsed. This fact was also pleaded before the learned Trial Court, but has not been taken into consideration without recording any special reasons as required under law. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 12. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for the State has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and defended the impugned judgment and order on merits. 13. I have given anxious consideration to the genesis, manner and place of occurrence, which is obviously started in a sudden manner due previous enmity. None of the injuries opined to be very serious in nature and even likely to cause death of any of the injured persons. 14. For constituting the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., the Court has to see, whether the act irrespective of its result, was done with the intention or knowledge and under circumstances mentioned in the Section 307 of the I.P.C. 15. In the instance case, all injuries are found to be simple in nature caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. The circumstances under which the injured has sustained injuries does not attract intention or knowledge as required to constitute offence under Section 307 of the IPC. 16. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not sustainable and justified under law, which is hereby set aside. 17. This Court further finds in the background of the evidence available in this case, offences under Sections 341/34 and 324/34 of the I.P.C. are well proved constituted against the appellants. 18. Considering the same, the conviction and sentence of the appellants for the offence under Sections 341/34 and 324/34 of the I.P.C. are hereby upheld and confirmed. 19. It appears that for the offence under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., appellants have been awarded sentence of two years R.I., although the appellant no. 1 has undergone 02 years 7 ½ months custody and appellant no. 2 has undergone 02 years and 10½ months custody during trial of the case. Therefore, they have already sustained the sentence awarded to them. Page 8 of 8 20. In view of above, this appeal is partly allowed, with alteration / modification in judgment of conviction and order of sentence as stated above. 21. The appellants are on bail, as such, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds and sureties shall also discharged 22. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful. [ (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 27th January, 2025 Sunil /N.A.F.R.