Md. Umar and Others vs The State of Bihar

Mandhata Singh, J.—Statement/Fardbeyan of Sadre Alam P.W. 7 is made basis for F.I.R. which in brief is that on 13.3.1992 at about 6.00 PM his father Noor Alam P.W. 5 was irrigating his land. Accused appellant Kari Mian came there and diverted the flow of water towards his field to first irrigate his field. Same was protested by the informant''s father. So there appeared some altercation and exchange of hot words in the field. Informant''s father came back his home. It is alleged that at about 6.30 PM all the accused appellants namely Kari Mian, Md. Abbas, Md. Umar, Bijuliya and Salim Mian variously armed with Lathi, Farsa, Grassa and Bhala came at his house and started abusing his father. A protest also was made on which tiled roof of the informant''s house was damaged by beating the same. On further protest accused appellant Kari Mian exhorted to finish all the family members and blew his Farsa on the head of informant''s mother. In attempt to ward the same it hit informant mother''s forehead causing cut and bleeding injury. She fell down.

Rest of accused persons pressed her chest repeatedly with force from their legs. For Bijuliya it is said that he inflicted Lathi blow on left arm causing fracture of bone of left arm, Umar Mian is alleged to have assaulted his father by means of Lathi causing injuries on his both arms and bleeding injury on head. Accused appellant Salim Mian is alleged for inflicting a Farsa blow on the head of his brother Shah Alam causing cut and bleeding injury. Bejuliya is alleged for assaulting Shah Alam informant''s brother by means of Lathi. Informant was also assaulted by Bijuliya when he went in rescue of his brother. On alarm witnesses appeared and accused appellants left the place of occurrence. With assistance of village people informant, his father, mother and younger brother were brought to the Clinic of Dr. S. Pandit where all the injured were being treated (provided medical aid). Fardbeyan was recorded at Police Station as informant had come there having simple injury only.

Trial is ended in conviction and sentence to all accused appellants for the offence under sections 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code by passing the impugned judgment validity of which has been questioned through filing this appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for accused appellants submits that parties are agnate from common ancestor, dispute was there due to land, the way in which injuries are caused by Lathi, Farsa or Grassa without repetition and inflicting simple injuries of sharp cutting weapons only nothing was existing to conclude that offence was falling u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code as there could be no intention to kill. According to learned counsel, the offence falls under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code. He concedes the factum of corroboration of assault causing injuries to victims alleged in the F.I.R. by prosecution witnesses who are well discussed in the impugned judgment.

From perusal of injury reports of informant, his brother, father and mother, it is clear that three injuries are found on the person of informant''s father, all by hard and blunt substance. Of them injury no.1 on scalp is simple, injury no.2 on shoulder and injury no.3 on forearm injury no. 2 and 3 are fractured, according to learned counsel, on non-vital part. A single simple incised injury is found on scalp of Shah Alam though by sharp cut weapon but without repetition. One of the injuries of informant''s mother on forehead is found simple caused by hard and blunt substance as against allegation by Farsa and second one is grievous by hard and blunt substance but on upper part of arm.

After going through the injuries, I agree with submission of the learned counsel for accused appellants that there was no intention to kill the victims rather the offence falls under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code.

Now parties have resolved their differences and a compromise petition is filed followed by a petition for permitting parties to compromise the case.

Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that incident if any took place in the year 1992 for differences of tube-well water for irrigation of field and parties were known to each other as were agnate from the common ancestor. Appellants suffered a lot for the same so, once good senses prevailed there should be no objection to allow the parties to compromise their case. I agree with the submission of learned counsel for the appellants on this point also. So, parties are permitted to compromise the case.

In the circumstance discussed above, it is observed that no offence u/s 307 of the Indian Penal Code is made out rather that falls under sections 323, 324 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code all read with section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code is not independent offence itself rather is fixing liability to those also having no specific overt act. So, compromise and permission to compromise come to play its role and case is decided in terms of compromise.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.9.1999 and 14.9.1999 passed in Sessions Trial no. 537/92 is set aside. Appellants shall stand discharged from their liabilities of respective bail bonds and set at liberty.

Copy of judgment along with lower court records be sent back to the trial court forthwith.