Patna High Court – Orders
Ravi Kumar vs The State Of Bihar Through The Principal … on 4 March, 2025
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.5603 of 2024
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-208 Year-2014 Thana- PANDAUL District- Madhubani
======================================================
Ravi Kumar S/o- Shri Subhash Purbey Village- Pandaul Machhatta Chowk
Ps- Pandaul Dist- Madhubani
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Bihar Patna Bihar
2. Pramod Thakur S/o- Sudak Thakur Village- Jansam Ps- Pandaul Dist-
Madhubani
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Amarnath Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Bipin Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anita Kumari Singh, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL ORDER
2 04-03-2025
Heard Mr. Amarnath Kumar, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh representing the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred for:
for setting aside the order dated
19.10.2024 passed by Sri Anjani Kumar
Gond, learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-IX, Madhubani in Sessions
Trial No. 132 of 2015 (Arising out of
Pandaul Police Station Case No. 208 of
2014) whereby and where under the learned
Sessions Judge-IX, Madhubani has pleased
to acquitted the Respondent No. 2 in offence
punishable under Section 341/34, 323/34,
326(A)/34, 304/34 of Indian Penal Code
arising out of Pandaul Police station Case
No. 208 of 2014.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
2/7
3. As per the prosecution story, the informant alleged
that the respondent no. 2 was running a Jewellery shop and on
the date of occurrence, his father was cleaning some dust, it
affected him and this led to scuffle. Allegation is that he threw
acid on the informant/father of the informant as also a tailor
master, which resulted into injuries. Further allegation is that the
respondent no. 2 is alcoholic and as such, the FIR was lodged
wanting action against him.
4. The police investigated the matter, charge-sheet
was submitted on 28.01.2015 under Section 341, 323, 326(a),
504/34 of the IPC. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken under
Section 341, 323, 326(A), 504 of the IPC on 30.01.2015,
charges framed on 18.07.2015. However, while the respondent
no. 2 was exonerated of the charges under Sections 326(a)/34
and 504/34 of the IPC, was convicted under Section 341/323/34
of the IPC. Accordingly, vide an order dated 19.10.2024, under
Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, after the
admonition, the respondent no. 2 was let off.
5. Aggrieved, the present appeal.
6. It is the case of the appellant that when the
prosecution witnesses supported the FIR theory that acid was
thrown on the informant’s side, the Trial Court was not justified
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
3/7
in exonerating him of the said charges. Further, they were also
abused in the public but again Section 504/34 was dropped. In
that background, an interference is required as the acquittal
under Section 326(a) and 504 of the IPC is injustice to the
appellant.
7. Mrs. Anita Kumari Singh represent the State and
she has taken this Court to the findings of the learned Trial
Court to show that:
(i) firstly, the injury on the person
of the victim has/have been found to be
simple in nature;
(ii) the original documents relating
to the said injuries were not presented before
the appropriate Medical Officer nor opinion
taken;
(iii) It was informed to the Court
in course of examination/cross examination
by the Medical Officer that the said injury
can also occur due to sprinkling of hot water.
8. She submits that as such, when the appropriate
medical documents were not presented for an opinion and the
second theory was also there that it could be due to sprinkling of
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
4/7
hot water coupled with the fact that the injury was found to be
simple in nature, Section 326(a) of the IPC was rightly dropped
in the present case.
9. She further submits that so far as Section 504 of the
IPC is concerned, again, while the case of the informant was
that they were abused, no specific word/statement was put
forward in course of deposition, in that backdrop, the learned
Trial Court was justified in dropping Section 504 of the IPC.
10. Learned APP further submits that so far as
assaulting the victim by hands/fist is/are concerned, the Court
came to the conclusion that the same has been proved beyond
doubt and in that background, the appellant was convicted under
Section 341 and 323/34 of the IPC. She further submits that
when both the Sections of the IPC clearly defines the
imprisonment below two years and the respondent no. 2 had no
criminal antecedent, naturally, the Section 3 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 (henceforth, for short ‘the Act’) will come
into play.
11. Section 3 of the Probation of Offenders Act,
1958 read as follows:
3. Power of Court to release
certain offenders after admonition-
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
5/7
When any person is found guilty of
having committed an offence punishable
under section 379 or section 380 or section
381 or section 404 or section 420 of the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or any
offence punishable with imprisonment for
not more than two years, or with fine, or
with both, under the Indian Penal Code, or
any other law, and no previous conviction is
proved against him and the Court by which
the person is found guilty is of opinion that,
having regard to the circumstances of the
case including the nature of the offence, and
the character of the offender, it is expedient
so to do, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in any other law for the time being
in force, the Court may, instead of
sentencing him to any punishment or
releasing him on probation of good conduct
under section 4, release him after due
admonition.
12. Learned APP, as such, submits that the order needs
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
6/7
no interference and the appeal is fit to be dismissed.
13. Having heard the parties and perusing the records,
the opinion of this Court is completely in line with the
submissions put forward by learned APP. The learned Trial
Court has given reasons why Section 326(a) as also Section
504/34 of the IPC is/are not applicable in the present case. The
injury was found to be simple in nature and there is/was two
opinion that it could also be due to the sprinkling of hot water.
Thus, he rightly observed that the prosecution could not prove
the applicability of Section 326(a) of the IPC against the
respondent no. 2.
14. Further, so far as abuse part is concerned, the
Court averred that nothing specific was recorded as to what kind
of abuse words were used against the informant/family
members. In that background, it rightly came to the conclusion
that Section 504 of the IPC has also not been proved.
15. So far as the conviction under Section 341, 323/34
of the IPC are concerned, naturally, when the aforesaid Sections
prescribe imprisonment below two years and the respondent no.
2 had no criminal antecedent, Section 3 of ‘the Act’ came into
play which was extended to him by the learned Trial Court.
16. In that background, there is no merit in the appeal,
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.5603 of 2024(2) dt.04-03-2025
7/7
it fails and is accordingly, dismissed.
17. Before parting, this Court would like to put on
record its word of appreciation for Mr. Amarnath Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the appellant for the assistance
rendered in the matter.
(Rajiv Roy, J)
Vijay Singh/-
U T
[ad_1]
Source link