Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. From the trial court records it would appear that Sessions Trial No. 838 of 2021 was registered after receipt of the records in the learned trial court on 20.12.2021. On 10.02.2022, the charges under Sections 307/384/34 and 504/34 IPC were explained to the accused in Hindi, he denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The learned trial court framed the charges under Sections 307, 384/34 and 504/34 IPC and issued summons to the prosecution witnesses.

15. The learned trial court held that the charge of demanding ransom has not been proved in this case as it is hard to believe that a person along with his father, brother and wife would demand ransom from their immediate neighbor and had it been so then the other neighbors or the co-villagers would have definitely come forward against the misdeeds of these accused persons. In absence of any independent witness on this point, the learned trial court held that it would not be safe to hold the accused guilty of offence under Section 384 IPC when nothing has been delivered to the accused by the informant or his family.

53. Keeping in view the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we are of the view that in this case, the prosecution has been able to prove that on the given date, at the time and at the given place of occurrence by the informant, the accused Samir Kumar had fired upon PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 causing them firearm injuries. The prosecution has been able to prove the charge under Section 307 and 504/34 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. It is evident from the evidence on the record that the quarrel between the injured witnesses and the accused had taken place on account of some demand for money which was being allegedly made by the accused by way of ransom. This Court finds that so far as the allegation that there was a demand of Rupees Five Lakhs by way of rangdari is concerned, the same has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubts, however, it is evident from the prosecution evidence and the pattern of cross- examination that the quarrel had ensued between the parties on demand of money. In this regard while PW-1 has stated in his fardbeyan that the accused was demanding a sum of rupees five lakhs, in his examination-in-chief he has stated that the accused was demanding a rangdari of rupees five lakhs. Thus, we find that the PW-1 has stated about a demand on account of rangdari for the first time in course of trial. I.O. has stated that he had recorded the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.35 of 2024 dt.12-09-2024 re-statement of PW-1 in paragraph '14' of the case diary but PW-1 has alleged that his re-statement was not correctly recorded by I.O., thus, there being no clinching evidence on the point of demand as rangdari. We are of the view that the charge under Section 384 IPC has not been duly proved. The immediate cause of occurrence was a demand of money but on what account the money was being demanded has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, hence we acquit the accused of the charge under Section 384 IPC.

54. In result, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial court has grossly erred in acquitting the accused Samir Kumar who is Respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 35 of 2024 and the sole respondent in Government Appeal (DB) No. 2 of 2024 of the charge under Section 307 and 504 IPC. The guilt of the accused has been proved beyond any shadow of doubt. No other views may be possibly taken. The judgment of the learned trial court is, therefore, set aside. The accused, namely, Samir Kumar is hereby convicted for the offence punishable under Section 307 and 504 IPC. He is, however, acquitted of the charge under Section 384 IPC.