Fatal Land-Dispute Assault Merited Section 304 Conviction, Allahabad HC Says, But It Upholds 325 Sentence Without State Appeal

A land and construction dispute led to an assault on 15 February 1983, in which Chunku, Smt. Tituli and Bhadauwa were injured; Bhadauwa later died from his injuries.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections 325 and 323 IPC, sentencing them to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 325 and six months’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 323, with sentences to run concurrently.

The accused appealed. During the appeals, Ghasitawa @ Ghasita died, and the appeal abated as to him; the appeals continued for Babulal, Ramdas and Ramlal.

Section 34 IPC imposes joint liability where an accused participates in an act done in furtherance of the common intention of all; individual attribution of each injury is not essential where joint participation and common intention are established.

The testimony of an injured witness ordinarily carries particular evidentiary weight because it confirms the witness’s presence at the occurrence, and relationship to a party alone does not justify rejecting testimony.

A statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence, though an admission or explanation may be considered alongside the other evidence.

The Court also referred to Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, concerning the elements of Section 300 “thirdly,” and State of A.P. v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, concerning cumulatively sufficient injuries.

The Court considered that altering the conviction or sentence to enhance the appellants’ liability required appropriate proceedings and compliance with the safeguards governing enhancement.

Advanced age does not, by itself, entitle an accused to probation; the nature and circumstances of the offence must also be considered.

The Court relied on the prompt FIR, the injured witness’s account, and the medical evidence—including fractures of the deceased’s parietal and temporal bones—to find the surviving appellants’ participation in the assault established beyond reasonable doubt; it treated variations about individual blows as immaterial and found that the alleged injuries to the accused did not undermine the prosecution case.

Although it observed that the serious injuries warranted closer consideration of a graver offence, it declined to enhance or alter the convictions because the State or victim had filed no enhancement appeal or revision, and the case was already more than four decades old.

It rejected probation, finding the death and serious injuries caused in the assault outweighed the appellants’ reliance on their age.

It directed them to surrender within ten days to serve the remaining sentence, allowed set-off for custody already undergone under Section 428 CrPC, and directed transmission of the judgment and trial record to the court concerned.

The appeal stood abated as to Ghasitawa @ Ghasita.