Dismissed

Sanichari Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jul 2013CR. APP (DB)/634/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The court held that medical evidence showed lacerated injuries and fractures from a blunt substance without sharp cuts, and injuries were inflicted in a specific circumstance involving a tree branch dispute, thereby validating the trial court's decision.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence of the respondents affirmed.

Sanichari Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Criminal Appeal (DB) No.634 of 2013

¶3

===================================================== Sanichari Devi, wife of Late Rajendra Bhagat, resident of villageNarayanpur, Police Station-Nautan, in the district of Siwan. .... .... Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Surendra Ram, son of Late Balkhila Ram. 3. Naimuddin Ansari, son of Ebrahim Ansari. 4. Akshay Lal Bhagat, son of Late Magister Bhagat. 5. Md. Sayed Ansari, son of Halim Ansari. 6. Md. Muslim, son of Late Soharam. 7. Mohan Singh, son of Dilip Singh. All residents of village-Narayanpur, Police Station-Nautan, in the district of Siwan. .... .... Respondents. ===================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Akhileshwar Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate & Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ajay Mishra, A.P.P. ===================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.N. SINHA)

¶4

---------------

¶5

3 16-07-2013 By filing I.A. No.868 of 2013, appellant has requested for condoning one day delay in filing the present appeal, which is condoned and I.A. No.868 of 2013 is, accordingly, disposed of. 2. The appeal is taken up for admission on merits. 3. Appellant is the wife of the deceased and informant

¶6

of Nautan P.S. Case No.68 of 2011, appertaining to G.R. Case No.1928 of 2011. She has challenged the Judgment and order dated 20, 26.2.2013 passed in Sessions Case No.54, 54-A of 2012 by the Adhoc Additional District and Sessions Judge-V, Siwan,

¶7

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.634 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 2/3

¶8

whereunder Respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part-II read with Sections 149, 148, 147, 323/149 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 149 of the Penal Code with fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 148, 147 and 323/149 of the Penal Code, Respondent Nos.2 to 7 have been directed to undergo 2, 1, 6 months rigorous imprisonment respectively. Sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

¶9

Learned counsel for the appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the trial court having accepted the prosecution case of assault on the deceased by Respondent Nos.2 to 7 with hard blunt substance and Farsa ought to have convicted them for the offence under Sections 302/149 and other allied Sections of the Penal Code and sentenced accordingly. In this Connection, learned counsel pointed out that prosecution case of assault on the person of the deceased by Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 has not only been supported by ocular evidence but also by medical evidence as found by the doctor and noted by the trial court in paragraph-18 of the Judgment.

¶10

From perusal of the injuries suffered by the

¶11

Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.634 of 2013 (3) dt.16-07-2013 3/3

¶12

deceased, it appears that he suffered injuries from hard blunt substance as the wound caused on his person are lacerated and fracture. There is no sharp cut injury, as such, injury having been inflicted by Farsa does not appear to be true. It appears before the occurrence Respondent Nos.2 to 7 approached the informant to permit them to cut branch of a Mango tree for funeral of covillager, Baharan Sah, which was refused by the informant leading to altercation and hot exchange of words between the prosecution party, deceased on the one hand and Respondent nos. 2 to 7 on the other side. In the aforesaid background, considering the injury specially when there is no repetition of blow found against any of the Respondents, We are of the view that the conviction and sentence imposed on the Respondent Nos.2 to 7 is in accordance with law and does not require any interference by this Court. The appeal is dismissed.

¶13

(V.N. Sinha, J)

¶14

Bhardwaj/-P.S.

¶15

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Sanichari Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanichari Devi v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Ram Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Braj Nandan Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Hussain @ Raju Hussain Vs the State of Bihar

Akil Akhtar @ Bholu Vs State of Bihar

Md. Rashid Akhtar @ Rashid Akhtar Vs State of Bihar

Abid Akhtar Vs State of Bihar