Anuj Singh Vs State of Bihar 2020

Anuj Singh Vs State of Bihar 2020

RELEVANCE-   This case is related to the statutory laws i.e., Indian Penal Code and Arms Acts. On having the Arms by anyone with malafide intention that comes under the offence committed under the Arms Act. Arms Act proved be the best statute in relation to governing the offences concerned with Arms.

FACTS-

1. On one day about 05:30 PM, while Kumar Nandan Singh was repairing the Kuccha Mud Wall which had fallen down due to rain, with the help of hired laborers, his neighbor Manoj Singh came and objected to repairing of the wall.
2. Kundan Singh told him that the land belongs to him, after which manoj Singh went to his house and came back again along with Anuj Singh having guns in their hands.
3. The other two friends of Manoj, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, also came having spears in their hands.
4. Both Manoj and Anuj came with a malafide intention to kill him, fired shots.
5. The bullet shot fired from the gun of Manoj Singh in the left leg and the bullet fired from the gun of Anuj Singh hit the hand.
6. Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh assaulted him with the spears and lathi in their hands.
7. On hearing gun shots, his family members and other villagers came there. All four accused ran away after seeing the people coming.
8. Kundan then went to Dr. Himkar for his treatment.
9. Then the police registered FIR at Police station Lakhi Sarai under sections 323,307 read with section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
10. After completing the investigation, police submitted the charge sheet against Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh under section 307 read with Section 27 of the Arms Act. The two other co-accused, Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh, were charged under section 307 read with section 34.
11. The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the accused persons on 01.09.2000 and the case was committed to the court of sessions on 16.01.2001.
12. The Trial Court after analyzing the case convicted the accused and the other two accused under section 307 read with section 34 IPC and the two main accused also found guilty under section 27 of the Arms Act.
13. All the four accused were sentenced of five years of rigorous imprisonment along with Rs.5000/- each and the two main accused were further sentenced for three years rigorous imprisonment under section 27 of Arms Act with 2000/- fine.
14. Two Criminal Appeals were filed before the High Court. The High Court decided both the appeals by common judgement and order stated that the appeal by Praveen Singh and Arvind Singh was allowed by High Court and their conviction and sentence was set aside.
15. And the criminal Appeal of two main accused was modified by the High Court that the conviction under section 307 IPC read with section 34 IPC to Section 324 IPC and modified the sentence awarded by the Trial court to Rigorous imprisonment for two years with the fine 5000/- and confirmed the sentencing under section 27 of the Arms Act.

ISSUES RAISED-

Whether conviction of the two appellants, Anuj Singh and Manoj Singh, under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act is sustainable?

ARGUMENTS-

Mrs. Anjana Prakash, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that though the conviction is under section 27 of the Arms Act but there is no material available on record.

Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent and the intervenor submitted that the High Court after analyzing the statement of the witnesses has rightly convicted the appellants and there being no illegality in the impugned order, the same does not warrant any interference.

JUDGEMENT-

Supreme Court held that the High Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under section 324 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The Supreme Court does not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgement. The appeal lacks merit and are concurrently dismissed.

CONCLUSON-
On having the concept of Hurt and Grievous Hurt , only the slight harm or the mere harm which caused any  injury o the body comes under it.When the injured person go for lodge the FIR , so the police officer has to file it without delay and intimate the concerned magistrate of related jurisdiction. Procedural laws and Substantive laws have their own pay towards each and every crime.

References-

1. Website- Indian Kanoon.

2. Book by Kelkar, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

written by Harshita Sharma ,Barkatullah University, Department of Law, Bhopal. 3^rd Year, 6^th semester (B.A.LLB (Hons.)

Admin