1
Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 01 of 1994
(Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.1993 passed by Shri
Ibrar Hassan, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West in Sessions
Trial No. 312 of 1992.)
--------------
Bimal @ Ghuna @ Duma ......... Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) .......... Opposite Party
---------------
For the Appellant : Mr. Tapas Roy, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Anita Sinha, A.P.P.
--------------
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR
By court: Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
dated 31.05.1993 passed by Shri Ibrar Hassan, 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Chaibasa, District- Singhbhum West in Sessions Trial No. 312 of 1992, by which
judgment, he found the sole appellant, Bimal @ Ghuna @ Duma guilty for the offence
under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years.
3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it will appear from the
F.I.R. itself that the accused and the informant both are own uncle and informant and
due to a very trivial matter in the house, when the cocks of accused Bimal Tudu
entered the field of the informant, Lakhan Tuddu, he ousted them and the cocks ran
away then his uncle out of frustration said that why he has done that. Thereafter, he
brought bow and arrow, then the arrow was sought upon him. There was no criminal
history against him and it is the first offence of the appellant, and as such, he requires
a sympathetic treatment.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the action of the appellant, in causing serious injury by giving an arrow
blow on his own nephew, was dangerous to his life, and as such, the appellant has
rightly been convicted under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I
find that the F.I.R. was lodged by the informant, Lakhan Tuddu on 08.06.1992 at
18:45 Hrs. stating therein that about 4 P.M. when he was taking food, his elder father’s
cocks entered the paddy field, then he ousted them from the field, whereupon his elder
father asked that why he had removed the cocks. Thereupon, the accused Bimal @
Ghuma @ Duma entered the house and came out with bow and arrow and sought the
arrow upon him. Lakhan Tuddu tried to escape, but the arrow caused injury on his left
arm.
2
6. On the basis of the said F.I.R., police registered a case for the offence under
Section 307/324 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation submitted charge
sheet in the case.
7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, learned
magistrate, after taking cognizance, committed the case to the court of Sessions and
finally the case was transferred to the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa,
District- Singhbhum West, who after framing the charge under Section 307/324 of the
Indian Penal Code and tried the case and convicted him as aforesaid.
8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined seven witnesses.
P.W.1 is Dr. M.P. Singh, who examined the informant.
P.W.2 is Kapura Tuddu, who is the mother of the informant.
P.W.3 is Pano Tuddu, who is the sister of the informant.
P.W.4 is Mano Majhi.
P.W.5 is Mohani Karo.
P.W.6 is Lakhan Tuddu, the informant of the case.
P.W.7 is Dinanath Pandey, the I.O. of the case.
9. Thus, after going through the evidences, it appears that the informant, Lakhan
Tuddu has fully supported his case and stated that since he has driven away the cocks
of the accused from his field, his elder father became furious, and thereafter, he came
out with an arrow and sought it on him causing injury on his left arm as also his chest.
He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan as Ext.2/1. He was also treated in
hospital for about a week. He has stated that both the appellant and the informant live
in the same house, but there is a partition in between the house.
10. P.W.2, Kapura Tuddu has also supported the case of the informant and stated
that when the altercation was started with regard to entering of the cocks between the
informant and the wife of the accused, then the accused brought bow and arrow and
sought the arrow on her son Lakhan Tuddu causing injury on his hand and chest.
P.W.3, Pano Tuddu has also supported the factum of the case.
11. It appears that the informant was examined on the same day by the doctor, who
deposed in Court as P.W.1 and proved the injury report as Ext.1. He has stated that
he found two injuries. One penetrating wound 3/4″x1/6″x through and through on the
upper outer part of the left arm. The point of the arrow coming out on the upper inner
part of the arm. The arrow and its shaft were still struck to the wound. And the
another injury was one incised wound 1/2″x1/2″x1/6″ on the upper part of left side of
chest in mid auxiliary line. This injury was caused by the tip of the arrow coming out of
injury No.1 as mentioned above. In the opinion of the doctor, both the injuries were
simple in nature and he has proved the injury report.
12. Thus, although the prosecution has proved that the injuries were caused to the
informant, P.W.6, but it appears that the intensity of the arrow was not so high to cause
death of the informant and virtually he received only one injury on the left arm, which
was simple in nature. In that view of the matter, since, it is the first offence of the
accused, who is closely related to the informant and the accused being his elder uncle,
3
his conviction under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is bad in law, and as such,
the conviction is altered to one under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. It appears that the appellant was aged about 52 years at the time of judgment,
which was passed in 1993, he is now aged about 69 years and it appears from the
lower court record that he has remained in custody for about 8 years after the
judgment and has remained in custody during investigation since 09.06.1992 and
about more than three months during trial, and since it is the first offecne of the
appellant in a family dispute, in that view of the matter, in my opinion, the sentence
already undergone by him during investigation, during trial and during appeal, is
sufficient punishment under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
14. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence, this appeal is allowed in part. If
the appellant is in custody, then, the trial Court is directed to release him forthwith if not
wanted in any other case.
[Pradeep Kumar, J.]
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
The 18th January, 2010
R.K./NAFR