Conviction under Section 324/34 IPC upheld, but sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

On 31 March 1998, the informant, Madan Ram @ Guddu Ram, was allegedly assaulted while proceeding towards the bank of the Ganga. Appellant No. 1 allegedly inflicted an incised injury on him with a garasa, after which the other accused also assaulted him. When the informant’s brothers intervened, they were allegedly attacked with garasa, bhala and lathi. The injured persons were medically examined, and the informant’s fardbeyan led to registration of Buxar Town P.S. Case No. 66 of 1998. The alleged motive was prior enmity concerning construction on disputed land.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against five accused under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Two co-accused died during the proceedings, and the trial continued against the three appellants.

The Trial Court convicted the appellants under Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000, with one month’s further imprisonment in default.

Six prosecution witnesses were examined, including the informant and another injured witness, the Investigating Officer and the Medical Officer. The injuries were found to be simple in nature.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants voluntarily caused hurt by dangerous weapons in furtherance of their common intention, attracting Section 324 read with Section 34 IPC.

Whether, considering the age of the appellants, the occurrence being 28 years old, their period of custody and subsequent conduct, the sentence should be reduced from one year’s imprisonment to the period already undergone and the fine waived.

The Court applied Section 324 IPC, concerning voluntarily causing hurt by means of dangerous weapons or means, read with Section 34 IPC, which attributes joint criminal liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

The Court relied on the settled principle that the credible and consistent testimony of injured witnesses can form the basis of conviction, particularly when corroborated by medical and investigative evidence.

For sentencing, the Court exercised its discretion to consider relevant mitigating circumstances, including the substantial lapse of time since the occurrence, the appellants’ age, the period already undergone and the absence of any subsequent complaint.

The Court found the evidence of the informant and the injured witness reliable and trustworthy. The informant, Madan Ram, fully supported the prosecution case, while Dharmendra Kumar Ram, another injured witness, corroborated the occurrence.

Although one witness did not support the prosecution, the Court held that this did not discredit the consistent testimony of the injured witnesses. The Investigating Officer corroborated the prosecution version and the investigation, and the medical evidence established injuries on the victims, though simple in nature.

On this evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had proved the appellants’ participation and the charge under Section 324/34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.

However, while considering sentence, the Court took into account that the incident occurred in 1998, the appellants were approximately 60 years old, they had already remained in custody for about one month, and no further complaint had been made against them after registration of the FIR.

However, the sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment was modified and reduced to the period already undergone. The fine of ₹5,000 imposed on each appellant was also waived. The appeal was accordingly disposed of.