The Patna High Court observed that merely because there was prior enmity between the parties, the testimony of the injured informant cannot be discarded; such enmity may constitute a motive for the occurrence itself.

The Court partially allowed a criminal appeal by upholding the conviction of the appellants—which included a retired Judicial Officer and a practising Advocate—under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for voluntarily causing hurt, while modifying and reducing their sentence to the period already undergone. 

The Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh observed, "It emerges from the evidence available on record that the alleged occurrence took place on account of the existing land dispute and previous litigations between the parties. Merely because there was prior enmity between the parties, the testimony of the injured informant cannot be discarded, rather such enmity may constitute a motive for the occurrence itself. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and correctly convicted the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and no interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is warranted."

Advocate Bhawana Jha appeared for the Appellants, while APP SN Jha appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts of the Case

The prosecution case originated from a written report filed by the informant. While the informant was returning home after attending the call of nature, he was intercepted and assaulted by the accused persons. One of the accused individuals dealt a blow on his back with an iron khanti (crowbar), while another assaulted him on his head with a lathi (wooden staff) with an alleged intention to kill, causing bleeding injuries. It was further alleged that a gold chain was snatched from the informant's neck during the incident. When the informant's mother rushed to the spot upon hearing his screams, she was also assaulted with an iron khanti and a lathi by the other accused persons, while one accused dragged her by her hair and slapped her.

Following the investigation, a chargesheet was submitted against the accused persons under Sections 323, 324, 307, 379, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The trial court, however, convicted the appellants solely for the offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the IPC (voluntarily causing hurt with common intention) and released them on probation of good conduct upon executing personal bail bonds. Aggrieved by the conviction, the appellants preferred criminal appeals before the High Court.

Contentions of the Parties

The Appellants contended that the impugned judgment of conviction was bad in law and fact, resting merely on conjectures and surmises. It was argued that the genesis of the occurrence stemmed from a long-standing land dispute and prior criminal litigations, which provided a strong motive for false implication due to dirty village politics.

The defence highlighted that out of the two witnesses examined by the prosecution, the independent witness turned hostile and failed to support the case, leaving only the interested testimony of the informant. It was further submitted that the appellants belonged to highly educated and respectable backgrounds—including a retired Judicial Officer and a practicing Advocate—possessed clean antecedents, and that the informant's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, making it unsafe to sustain a conviction.

Per contra, the State vigorously opposed the appeals, contending that the learned trial court had meticulously appreciated the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. The State argued that the testimony of the injured informant was reliable, consistent, and adequately corroborated the manner and place of occurrence, thereby justifying the conviction.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that the testimony of a hostile witness does not render the entire prosecution case unreliable if there is otherwise cogent, credible, and trustworthy evidence available on record. The Court noted that the informant was an injured witness whose testimony carried significant weight, and despite extensive cross-examination, the defence could not elicit anything substantial to discredit his version regarding the date, time, and manner of the assault.

The Court further observed that while prior enmity between parties could act as a double-edged sword, it established a clear motive for the occurrence and could not be used as a ground to discard the testimony of an injured victim. However, the Court found that the nature of the weapons used and the simple injuries sustained did not establish the requisite intention or knowledge necessary to attract the ingredients of Section 307 of the IPC (attempt to murder) or the offence of robbery.

"The law recognizes that the existence of a guilty intention alone is not sufficient to constitute an attempt. There must be something more than planning or arranging the means to commit the crime. Therefore, in order to secure a conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must prove the presence of a definite intention or knowledge to cause death, accompanied by some overt act that directly moves towards the execution of that intention", the Court said. 

Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court was entirely justified in convicting the appellants under Section 323/34 of the IPC. While upholding the judgment of conviction, the Court modified and reduced the sentence to the period already undergone by the appellants, thereby partially allowing the appeal.

Cause Title: Binod Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.220 of 2014]

Appearances:

Appellants: Advocate Bhawana Jha

Respondent: APP S. N. Prasad

Click here to read/download the Judgment

Tags: