The Patna High Court has held that prior enmity between parties, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case, particularly where the same also furnishes a plausible motive for the occurrence. Observing that the prosecution had proved the offence of voluntarily causing hurt despite failing to establish charges of attempt to murder and robbery, the Court upheld the conviction of the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it reduced the sentence to the period already undergone.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice Purnendu Singh was hearing criminal appeals challenging the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 323/34 IPC and extending them the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The prosecution case was that on February 27, 2005, the informant was assaulted while returning after attending the call of nature. It was alleged that one of the accused struck him with a khanti on his back, while another assaulted him with a lathi on his head. The informant further alleged that his gold chain was snatched during the occurrence. According to the prosecution, when the informant's mother rushed to the spot after hearing his cries, she too was assaulted by the accused persons, sustaining injuries.

Following investigation, a chargesheet was submitted under Sections 323, 324, 307, 379 and 34 IPC. The trial court, however, convicted the accused only under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC.

Assailing the conviction, the appellants contended that the case arose out of a long-standing land dispute and previous criminal litigation between the parties, which furnished a strong motive for false implication. It was pointed out that one prosecution witness had turned hostile, while the informant himself admitted that the genesis of the occurrence lay in the existing land dispute.

The appellants further submitted that they belonged to respectable families and had been falsely implicated due to village politics. It was pointed out that one appellant was a retired Judicial Officer, another was a practising advocate, another a school teacher and the fourth the proprietor of a dairy.

Upon examining the evidence, the High Court observed that the prosecution substantially rested on the testimony of the injured informant. The Court noted that although the informant's testimony was not free from inconsistencies and the investigation suffered from certain infirmities, the evidence nevertheless established that the informant had been assaulted during the occurrence.

The Bench observed that the prosecution had failed to establish the ingredients necessary to sustain charges under Section 307 IPC or the allegation of robbery beyond reasonable doubt. However, the Court held that the evidence sufficiently proved that the accused persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, had voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and his mother.

Rejecting the argument that previous enmity rendered the prosecution case unreliable, 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.”

The Bench further held:

“The existence of prior enmity, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case, particularly when the same also furnishes a plausible motive for the occurrence.”

Holding that the trial court had rightly appreciated the evidence while convicting the appellants under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC, the High Court declined to interfere with the conviction.

However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the period already undergone by the appellants, the Court modified the sentence and reduced it to the period already undergone. It further directed that if the appellants had already undergone the modified sentence, they be released forthwith unless required in any other case.

Case Title: Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 220 of 2014.

Appearance: Ms. Bhawana Jha for the Appellant. Mr. S. N. Prasad for the State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order