Patna High Court Upholds Assault Conviction
On July 1, the Patna High Court confirmed the conviction of a retired judge and a practicing lawyer involved in a 2005 assault case. Justice Purnendu Singh dismissed the appeals of retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram, advocate Binod Kumar, and two family members against the 2014 trial court ruling. They were convicted under Section 323 in conjunction with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for voluntarily causing hurt.
However, the court reduced their sentence to the time already served. The charges stemmed from a protracted land dispute and prior legal battles between the accused and the complainant, Rahul Kumar. As per the prosecution, on February 27, 2005, Rahul Kumar was allegedly attacked by advocate Binod Kumar with a crowbar (iron khanti) when returning from the fields. Retired judicial officer Yogendra Ram reportedly hit him on the head with a lathi, also seizing his gold chain and further assaulting him.
When Rahul Kumar’s mother intervened, Binod Kumar allegedly attacked her with the crowbar, while Rajan Kumar and Suchita Kumari, the other accused, supposedly attacked her with a lathi, pulling her hair and slapping her. Following a police investigation, charges were filed against them under IPC Sections 323, 324, 307, 379, and 34. The trial court only found them guilty of voluntarily causing hurt under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC and released them under the Probation of Offenders Act upon furnishing personal bonds.
High Court Analysis and Ruling
In their High Court appeal, the convicts argued that the charges were fueled by village politics and longstanding enmity over the land dispute. They pointed out inconsistencies in the informant’s statements and a hostile witness, claiming insufficient evidence for conviction. However, the High Court rejected these arguments.
Justice Singh noted that despite a hostile witness, the prosecution’s case was robust, resting primarily on the injured informant’s testimony. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the judge stated that a hostile witness does not undermine the prosecution’s case if other evidence is reliable. The cross-examination of Rahul Kumar failed to contradict his testimony or show false implication. The court concluded that prior enmity alone is not enough to disregard an injured witness’s account.
More Read
“The existence of prior enmity may actually provide a motive for the crime,” the court remarked. While the prosecution could not prove attempted murder or robbery charges beyond a reasonable doubt, evidence sufficiently established that the convicts, acting with a common intention, caused injury to Rahul and his mother. The conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC was thus upheld.
The High Court adjusted the sentence to time already served, instructing that the convicts be released immediately if their modified sentence was completed, unless detained for other cases.
