Singhraj Ansari And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.185 of 2012

(Against the Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.01.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.211 of 2011.

¶5

1.Singhraj Ansari

¶6

2.Hafijuddin Ansari 3.Zabbar Ansari …. Appellants Versus The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent

¶7

P R E S E N T

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

….. For the Appellant : Mr. Bharat Kumar, Amicus Curiae For the State : Ms. VANDANA BHARTI, APP

¶10

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the

¶11

State.

¶12

2. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.01.2012, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in S.T. Case No.211 of 2011, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 307 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of five years and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo SI for three months.

¶13

3. As per the case of prosecution, it is alleged that squabble took place between the informant and his brother- Jamal Ansari on the one side and the appellants/accused persons on the other side, with regard to a minor dispute of decoration of flowers on the eve of Eid festival. It is said that the appellants on 26.09.2010 at 8:00 am in the morning, conjointly made attempt on the life of said Jamal Ansari resulting in injuries. The injured was rescued by one Shamim Ansari and Jumman Ansari.

¶14

On the basis of the ' fardbeyan ', First Information Report being Pindrajora P.S. Case No. 119 of 2010 was instituted and on investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance, the accused persons were put on trial under Sections 307/34 IPC.

¶15

4 . Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of prosecution and relevant documents were marked as Exhibits.

¶16

5 . It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that from the manner of assault and the weapon used, it cannot be said that the appellants had any requisite intention to cause the death of the injured. Dr. K. K. Sinha (P.W.7) has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit-2 from which it will be apparent that there was one single cut injury. As such, the single injury will rule out conjoint assault with an intention to cause death. Doctor has opined that the injury was simple in nature.

¶17

6 . Learned counsel for the State has defended the impugned judgment and order of conviction. It is submitted that the assault was made in a prearranged manner, on account

¶18

2

¶19

of the past dispute between both the sides, and the injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body that was occipital region and, therefore, Section 307 IPC will be made out.

¶20

7 . Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, this Court is of the view that offence under Section 307 IPC will not be made out on the basis of materials on record. The subjective determination of intention depends among other factors upon the manner of assault, weapon used and the manner in which is inflicted. In the present case, there is evidence that there were three persons who were involved in assault,. However, the injury report belies the prosecution story of indiscriminate assault with an intention to cause death. Doctor has opined it was a case of single blow and the nature of injury to be simple in nature.

¶21

8 . Under the circumstances, conviction for offence under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is accordingly set aside.

¶22

However, considering the fact that injury was inflicted by rod, offence under Section 324 IPC shall be made out as against them.

¶23

On the point of sentence, taking into account the genesis of the offence, which was a trivial dispute over the decoration to be made on the eve of Eid Festival and there being nothing on record to suggest that the appellants had criminal antecedent, as such, ends of justice will be served on serving of sentence by the appellants already undergone.

¶24

Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed with modification in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶25

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶26

09 . The services rendered by Mr. Bharat Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae in the instant Criminal Appeal is worth appreciated and the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi shall pay the admissible fee to him at the earliest.

¶27

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶28

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 24^th January, 2024. sandeep/NAFR

Singhraj Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Singhraj Ansari And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Edupuganti Vara Prasad Choudhary Vs Bokaro Steel Limited And Ors.

Kamshwar Singh Vs Union of India And Ors.

Rajesh Sahu And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand And Anr.

Kapildeo Tiwari Vs State of Jharkhand

Ashok Tiwary And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Maimun Khatoon Alias Maimun Nisa Vs the State of Jharkhand