Rajkishor Behera
07 September 2019
OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 307 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF I.P.C.
JUDGMENT
The above named accused persons stand charged for offence Under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder in
furtherance of their common intention.
2. The case of the prosecution in short is that on 5.7.2009 at about 8
A.M. at village Badibahal one Panduram was cultivating his land. At that time the son
of Sukdev and his son-in-law came their and abused Panduram. When the informant
Gandhi Nag reached there, he found Gandhi Nag was lying on the field with injured
condition. He told that when he was cultivating his field, at that time the son of
Sukdev, Rukuna Behera, one Baida Behera, Rajkishor Behera and Ranjan Beheraassaulted him by means of tangia causing bleeding injury on his left leg, wrist and
other parts of his body. Thereafter police came to the spot and the injured was
shifted to hospital. Then the informant lodged written FIR at Loisingha P.S. The IIC,
Loisingha P.S. registered Loisingha P.S. case No. 104 dated 5.7.2009 and took up
investigation.
3. The plea of the defence is one of complete denial and false
implication.
4. The point for determination is as follows :
Whether on 5.7.2009 at about 8 AM at village Baidibahal the accused
persons in furtherance of their common assaulted Panduram by
means tangia causing bleeding injury on his person ?
5. In order to prove its case, the prose4cution has examined as many as
nine witnesses whereas defence has examined none. PW 1 is the injured, PW 6 is the
informant, PWs 2,5,7 and 8 are independent witnesses, PWs 3 and 4 are the seizure
witness and PW 9 is the medical officer.
6. PW 1 is the injured of this case. He has stated in his evidence that
about 5 years back while he was cultivating his land fell down on the ground and
sustained injuries by means of ploughs. He became unconscious and was shifted to
hospital. This witness was declared hostile by the prosecution but nothing
substantial brought from his mouth. PW 6 is the informant of this case. He has
deposed that about 4 to 5 years back police called him to the spot and then the
injured and he himself went to police-station where he scribed the FIR at the
instance of injured Panduram Behera. He has further deposed that he saw the
injured lying on the ground sustaining injuries on his leg and on being asked he told
him that accused Rajkishor Behera assaulted him. In cross-examination, this witness
has stat4ed that he has no personal knowledge about the occurrence. The accused
persons were not present at the spot when he arrived there, so also he cannot say
the contents of the FIR. PW 3 is the seizure witness. He has deposed that about 5
years back police seized one Lungi and shirt in his presence and prepared seizurelist
marked Ext.1 and Ext.2 respectively. Similarly PW 4 is another seizure witness. He
has deposed that he only heard about the incident from one Gobinda who told him
that the injured was assaulted by the accused persons, so he reported the matter to
police over phone and took the injured to medical for treatment. He has also heardthat the accused persons have imputed the left leg and right hand of the injured.
Police seized the blood stained shoes of the injured from the spot and blood stained
earth and prepared seizure list marked Ext.3 wherein he has put his signature
marked as ext. 3/1. The independent witnesses PWs 2 and 5 have not supported the
case of the prosecution They have only stated that the accused persons were
creating disturbance and there was fighting between both the parties. PW 7 is a
police constable of Loisingha P.S. He has stated that on 5.7.2009 one Birbal Dharua
(PW 4) has reported over telephone that Rukman Behera assaulted Nirmal Behera.
Then police of Loisingha P.S. went to the spot. PW 8 has stated that in the year 2009
the injured (PW 1) has took his tractor to cultivate his land and the accused persons
protested to cultivate his land, so he returned.
7. PW 9 is the medical officer. He has deposed that on 5.7.2009 on
police requisition he has examined Panduram Behera and found four injuries (i) One
cut injury with suspected fracture of right fore arm about 2 ½” over wrist joint (ii)
One swelling with fracture of right arm about the elbow joint, (iii) One cut injury of
size 2 ½” x ½”x ½” with suspected fracture of left leg about 2” above ankle joint and
(iv) One cut injury of size 4” x 3” x3” with fracture of right leg about 2” above the
ankle joint and submitted medical report marked Ext. 5. He has further deposed that
on 24.12.2009police produced weapon of offence i.e. axe and he opined that the
above injuries were possible by that weapon axe and submitted his query report
marked Ext.6. He has also deposed that on the same day x-ray film Nos. R-432, 433,
434 and 435 dated 6.7.2009 bearing registration No. 38975 dated 5.7.2009 were
produced before him for opinion. He has opined that injury No.l is grievous caused
by a sharp cutting weapon, injury No.2 is grievous caused by hard and blunt
weapon, injury No.3 is grievous in nature and might have been caused by sharp
cutting weapon and injury No.4 is grievous in nature and might have been caused by
sharp cutting weapon and submitted opinion report marked Et.7. In cross-
examination, this witness has stated that the x-ray plates were produced before him
after 3 months and the injured was not present at the time of examination. He has
also stated that the injuries on injured can be possible by other weapons also.
8. In order to establish the case U/s. 307 read with Section 34 IPC, the
prosecution has to prove that the accused persons in prosecution of their common
intention being armed with deadly weapons caused hurt so also attempted tocommit murder to the Panduram Behera. However, in order to prove the offence
U/s. 307 IPC, the following ingredients are to be proved.
1) The accused did an act,
2) The said act was done.
a) With the intention of causing death or
b) With the intention of –
i) Causing such bodily injury as the accused knew to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm was
attempted to be caused, or
ii) Causing bodily injury to a person and the bodily injury
intended to be caused would have been sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
iii) The act, if committed, would have so imminently dangerous
that it would have in all probability caused death and at was
attempted without any justification for incurring the risk of
causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.
9. After close scrutiny of the evidence on record as discussed above, it
appears that the informant although stated in his examination in chief that about 2
years back he heard from one Gobinda that the injured (PW 1) was assaulted by the
accused persons for which his left leg and right hand was amputed and then police
seized the blood stained shoes of the injured from the spot and blood stained earth
and prepared seizure list marked Ext.3 but the injured himself has not corroborated
the evidence of the informant PW 6. He has simply deposed in his examination in
chief that while he was cultivating his land, he fell sown on the ground and
sustained injuries by means of ploughs and became unconscious. The other
prosecution witnesses have not deposed a single word regarding any assault by the
accused persons. The I.O. of the case has not been examined in this case to prove the
seizure of blood stained articles. The seized articles neither produced in this case
nor marked as M.Os. The independent witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution. The injured himself has stated that he has sustained injury on his on
his body by fall on the ground by means of ploughs. Further, since the independent
witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not disclosed the identity of
the accused persons or any assault, as a result of which there is no direct evidence
available against the accused persons for committing the offence U/s 307 read with
Section 34 IPC for which it is difficult to warrant conviction against the accused person. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case discussed as above, this
court came to hold that the prosecution is not able to prove the case against the
accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly I hold the accused
persons not guilty of the offence U/ss. 307 read with section 34 IPC and acquit them
therefrom in view of Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The accused persons be discharged
from their bail bonds and set at liberty forthwith.
