Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Jamser Ali vs The State Of West Bengal on 3 March, 2025
Author: Dipankar Datta
Bench: Dipankar Datta
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
[arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 14343/2024]
JAMSER ALI & ANR. APPELLANTS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL RESPONDENT
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order
dated May 07, 20241 passed by a learned Judge of the High
Court at Calcutta.
3. While disposing of a criminal appeal2 under Section
374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 carried by the
appellants from the relevant Sessions Court’s judgment of
conviction for commission of offences punishable under
Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
JATINDER KAUR
1
Date: 2025.03.06
17:43:04 IST impugned order
Reason:
2
Crl. Appeal No.222 of 2001
2
18603 and order on sentence whereby they were sentenced
to seven years of rigorous imprisonment plus fine of
Rs.500/- each, the High Court, for the reasons assigned in
the impugned order, was of the view that the conviction of
the appellants under Section 307, IPC is not sustainable and
as a consequence, the High Court set aside the conviction
under Section 307, IPC; however, it convicted the appellants
under Section 326, IPC read with Section 34 thereof and
sentenced them to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
4. Notice was issued on the special leave petition, out of
which this appeal arises, as to whether the High Court
should have convicted the appellants under Section 324, IPC
instead of Section 326 thereof.
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and perused the evidence on record.
6. There is evidence on record attributing the injuries
inflicted on the victim (PW-9) to the appellants. For
infliction of injury, bamboo sticks and a ‘battam’, i.e., a
wooden log, were used as the weapons of offence by the
appellants. The victim suffered a head injury, whereupon he
3
IPC
3
was taken to the local primary health center. Two stitches
were administered by the doctor at such centre. The victim
himself deposed that he did not name the appellants as his
assailants before the said doctor. The victim was later on
referred to the sub-divisional hospital; there also, he did not
disclose to the doctor attending on him (PW-11) that the
appellants were the assailants. It appears from the evidence
of PW-11 that the victim had disclosed of having suffered
the head injury as a result of physical assault.
7. Considering the nature of evidence tendered before
the relevant Sessions Court, it is not too clear as to what
were the sizes of the weapons of offence and how heavy
they were; also, it is unclear as to whether they were
instruments which, used as weapons of offence, were likely
to cause death. Thus, it is doubtful as to whether such
weapons would constitute “dangerous weapons” within the
meaning of Section 326, IPC.
8. There being such doubt as to whether the weapons
used were dangerous, conviction of the appellants under
Section 326, IPC cannot, therefore, be sustained and benefit
4
of lesser offence seems to be justified on facts and in the
circumstances.
9. We are of the considered view that there was sufficient
material on record for which the High Court would have
been justified if, instead of Section 326, IPC, it were to
proceed to convict the appellants for the offence punishable
under Section 325 thereof.
10. PW-11 had testified that as a result of the injury
suffered by the victim, he had to be hospitalized; while the
victim was admitted on 31st August, 1994, he was
discharged after for more than 20 (twenty) days’
hospitalization on 22nd September, 1994. One can
reasonably presume that as a result of the hurt suffered by
the victim, he was in bodily pain for all these days and
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. In view of Section
320, IPC, the same answers the eighth kind of hurt and
constituting ‘grievous hurt’ as it does, the appellants cannot
escape conviction thereunder.
11. In such view of the matter, we convict the appellants
for the offence punishable under Section 325, IPC.
5
12. Turning to the question of sentence, we find that the
incident of offence dates back to 26 th August, 1994. We are
informed that the appellants have spent six months in
custody and that they have not been involved in any other
offence since then.
13. Having considered the totality of the facts and
circumstances, we are also of the view that interest of
justice would be sufficiently served if the sentence imposed
by the relevant Sessions Court and the High Court are set
aside and the appellants are sentenced to imprisonment for
the period of imprisonment already undergone and also
made to bear the fine imposed. Ordered accordingly.
14. Upon the appellants depositing the fine amount within
a period of a month from date, they shall be discharged of
the bail bonds. In default, the sentence imposed hereby will
stand revoked and the appellants, in such event, shall be
liable to suffer imprisonment for a total period of a year
minus the imprisonment already undergone.
15. In the result, the impugned order stands set aside and
the appeal stands disposed of on the aforesaid terms.
6
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
…………………………J.
[DIPANKAR DATTA]
…………………………J.
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi;
March 03, 2025.
7
ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.14 SECTION II-B
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 14343/2024
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
07-05-2024 in CRLA No. 222/2001 passed by the High
Court at Calcutta]
JAMSER ALI & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondent(s)
IA No. 209031/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
IA No. 209032/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
Date : 03-03-2025 This matter was called on for hearing
today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
For Petitioner(s) :Mr. M.K.Perwez, Adv.
Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR
Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the signed
order.
3. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(JATINDER KAUR) (SUDHIR KUMAR SHARMA)
P.S. to REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Signed order is placed on the file]
[ad_1]
Source link