The Patna High Court on July 1 upheld the conviction of a retired judicial officer and a practising advocate in a 2005 assault case [Binod Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar].
Justice Purnendu Singh dismissed the appeal filed by retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram, advocate Binod Kumar and two of their family members against a 2014 trial court judgment convicting them under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing hurt.
However, the Court reduced their sentence to the period already undergone.
The case arose out of a long-standing land dispute and earlier litigation between the accused and the complainant, Rahul Kumar.
According to the prosecution, on the morning of February 27, 2005, Rahul Kumar was returning after attending the call of nature when advocate Binod Kumar allegedly assaulted him with an iron khanti (crowbar).
Retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram then struck him on the head with a lathi. The prosecution further alleged that Yogendra Ram snatched Rahul Kumar’s gold chain and assaulted him again.
When Rahul Kumar’s mother rushed to rescue him, Binod Kumar assaulted her with the khanti, while the remaining accused, Rajan Kumar and Suchita Kumari, attacked her with a lathi and by pulling her hair and slapping her.
Following investigation, police chargesheeted the accused for offences under Sections 323, 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by weapon), 307 (attempt to murder), 379 (theft) and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
The trial court, however, convicted them only for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and released them under the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing personal bonds.
Before the High Court, the convicts argued that the prosecution case was the result of village politics and previous enmity arising out of the land dispute. They contended that one prosecution witness had turned hostile, the informant had made inconsistent statements and the evidence was insufficient to sustain their conviction.
The High Court, however, found no merit in these submissions.
The Court noted that although one prosecution witness had turned hostile, the prosecution case substantially rested on the testimony of the injured informant. Referring to Supreme Court decisions , Justice Singh observed that the testimony of a hostile witness does not render the prosecution case unreliable where there is otherwise cogent and trustworthy evidence on record.
The Court found that nothing substantial had emerged during Rahul Kumar’s cross-examination to discredit his testimony or establish false implication.
The existence of prior enmity could not be the sole ground to discard the testimony of an injured witness, the Court concluded.
“Merely because there was prior enmity between the parties, the testimony of the injured informant cannot be discarded, rather such enmity may constitute a motive for the occurrence itself,” the Court observed.
Justice Singh further held that while the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary to attract the offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC or the allegation of robbery beyond reasonable doubt, the evidence was sufficient to prove that the convicts, acting in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to Rahul and his mother.
The Court therefore upheld the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.
However, taking into account the facts of the case and the period already undergone by the convicts, the High Court modified the sentence and reduced it to the imprisonment already served.
It directed that if the convicts had already undergone the modified sentence, they be released immediately unless required in any other case.
[Read Judgment]