Dhanna Chaudhary And Ors. vs State Of Bihar
- SCC(1985) 3 SCC 680
- AIRAIR 1985 SC 1688
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where medical evidence establishes that injuries were caused by weapons but the doctor's testimony is confused and does not clearly establish an intention to cause death—specifically where a doctor describes injuries as superficial despite the weapon used being sharp and cutting—the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be safely upheld and must be reduced to Section 326 IPC. Where two dead bodies are not produced in evidence and there is no finding that they were ever found, but evidence establishes that accused persons disposed of bodies, a conviction under Section 201 IPC read with Section 149 IPC is sustainable on the basis of the circumstantial evidence of disposal alone, without production of the bodies themselves.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. In this appeal by special leave the two appellants, Awadesh and Biso, have been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life Under Section 302/149 IPC and the other accused Under Section 326/149 IPC. Three pf the accused persons are already dead and, therefore, their appeal abates. Thus, twelve appellants are left in the field.
2. We have gone through the judgments of the courts below and we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by them with a small exception, viz., that having regard to the evidence of the Doctor (PW 35), it has not been conclusively proved that there was any intention to cause the murder of the three deceased persons. The Doctor, while describing the nature of the injuries, has stated that there was one injury near about the region of the nose inflicted by a bhala and all other injuries were caused by lathis, but they were superficial. The Doctor seems to be confused because he says that bhala which is a sharp cutting weapon is like a lathi. In this confused state of the medical evidence we find it wholly unsafe to uphold the conviction of Awadesh and Biso Under Section 302/149 IPC and we alter their conviction to one Under Section 326/149 IPC.
3. Accordingly, we allow this appeal to the extent that the convictions of Awadesh and Biso are altered from 302/149 IPC to 326/149 IPC and we impose a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years under these sections. The conviction and the sentence of the other appellants shall stand.
4. Further, there is no evidence that the two dead bodies were ever found and which seem to have been disposed of by some of the accused and, therefore, we affirm the conviction of all the appellants Under Section 201/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence them to five years' rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences-Under Section 326/149 and Under Section 201/149 IPC shall run concurrently.
5. A large volume of evidence of a number of witnesses was produced before the trial court which has been carefully considered by the High Court and except to the extent mentioned above, we do not think that the concurrent findings of the two courts should be disturbed in an appeal by special leave.
6. The appeal is allowed only to the extent of the modification in the sentence of Awadesh and Biso as indicated above and is otherwise dismissed. Bail bonds of the appellants are cancelled and they should be taken into custody to serve out the sentences imposed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free