The Patna High Court upheld the conviction of a retired judicial officer and a practising advocate in a 2005 assault case linked to a land dispute. While affirming their guilt, the Court reduced the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone by the convicted appellants.
The Patna High Court has upheld the conviction of a retired judicial officer and a practising advocate in connection with a 2005 assault case arising out of a long-standing land dispute. While affirming the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court, the High Court modified the sentence and reduced it to the period already undergone by the convicts, considering the circumstances of the case.
In its judgment delivered on July 1, Justice Purnendu Singh dismissed the criminal appeal filed by retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram, advocate Binod Kumar, and their family members Rajan Kumar and Suchita Kumari. The appeal challenged a 2014 trial court judgment that had convicted them under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing hurt while acting with a common intention.
Although the High Court upheld the conviction, it exercised its discretion to reduce the sentence to the imprisonment already undergone by the appellants.
Background of the Dispute
The criminal case had its roots in a prolonged property dispute and earlier litigation between the accused persons and the complainant, Rahul Kumar. According to the prosecution, the rivalry over land had created longstanding hostility between the two families, ultimately culminating in the violent incident.
As per the prosecution’s version, the incident occurred on the morning of February 27, 2005, when Rahul Kumar was returning home after attending the call of nature.
It was alleged that advocate Binod Kumar attacked Rahul Kumar with an iron khanti (crowbar), causing injuries. The prosecution further claimed that retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram assaulted Rahul on the head with a lathi and allegedly snatched his gold chain before attacking him again.
The assault reportedly escalated when Rahul Kumar’s mother rushed to protect her son. According to the prosecution, Binod Kumar assaulted her with the iron khanti, while Rajan Kumar and Suchita Kumari allegedly joined the attack by hitting her with a lathi, pulling her hair and slapping her.
Following the incident, the police registered a case and, after investigation, filed a chargesheet against the accused under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 324 (causing hurt by dangerous weapons), 307 (attempt to murder), 379 (theft), and 34 (common intention) of the IPC.
However, after evaluating the evidence, the trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the more serious allegations of attempt to murder and theft beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial court ultimately convicted all four accused only for the offence of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC. Instead of imposing a custodial sentence, the court released them on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, subject to the execution of personal bonds.
High Court’s Observations
Before the High Court, the appellants sought reversal of their conviction by arguing that the criminal case had been fabricated due to longstanding village rivalry and previous disputes over land.
They contended that the prosecution evidence was unreliable, pointing out that one of the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile. They also argued that the complainant had made contradictory statements during the proceedings and that the evidence on record was insufficient to sustain the conviction.
The High Court found no merit in the contentions raised by the appellants and held that the conviction recorded by the trial court was legally sustainable.
Justice Purnendu Singh observed that the prosecution case primarily rested on the testimony of the injured complainant, whose evidence carried significant evidentiary value. Referring to settled principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court noted that merely because one witness had turned hostile, the prosecution case could not be rejected if reliable and trustworthy evidence otherwise existed on record.
The Court further found that nothing substantial had emerged during the cross-examination of Rahul Kumar that could cast doubt on his version of events or indicate that the accused had been falsely implicated.
Rejecting the argument that prior hostility itself weakened the prosecution’s case, the Court observed:
“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,”
ALSO READ: Corrupt Judge | “Post Comes With Great Responsibility”: HC Upholds Dismissal of an ADJ
While examining the evidence, the High Court agreed that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary for the offences of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC and theft/robbery beyond reasonable doubt.
However, the Court held that the material on record clearly established that the accused persons had voluntarily caused injuries to Rahul Kumar and his mother while acting with a common intention. Accordingly, the High Court affirmed the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence.
Although the conviction was upheld, the High Court took note of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, including the period already undergone by the convicts.
Considering these factors, Justice Singh modified the sentence and reduced it to the imprisonment already served by the appellants. The Court further directed that if the convicts had already completed the modified sentence, they should be released immediately, unless their custody was required in connection with any other criminal case.
The judgment brings to a close litigation that had remained pending for nearly two decades, while reaffirming that credible testimony of an injured witness can form the basis of conviction even where previous enmity exists between the parties.
Case Title: Binod Kumar & Ors. v. The State of Bihar
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
