Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Basant Das Vs. the State of Bihar

Basant Das vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 19, 2011
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/917862

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Patna High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No.39 OF 1996 (S.J.)
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal

Key legal issue
Criminal
Acts & sections
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307, 326

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Basant Das

Advocate Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv.

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Advocate Mrs. Nirmala Kumari, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections 307, 326

Excerpt

1. the appellant has been convicted u/s.307 i.p.c. and sentenced to r.i. for ten years by the 1st additional sessions judge, darbhanga in sessions trial no.273 of 1994/ 3 of 1996 by a judgment dated 27.1.1996.                  2. the prosecution case is that on 5.3.1994 while the informant was taking betel the appellant came there and assaulted him thrice with knife, on account of which he was severely injured. 3. during trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses. out of whom, p.w.3 is the brother of the informant and  even though he attempted to give  eye witness account of the  occurrence he conceded in his cross examination that he had  reached the place of occurrence after some time when the  occurrence was over. p.w.4, the only independent witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution. p.w.1 is the doctor, who examined the informant, whereas p.w.2 is the informant himself. p.w.5 is a formal witness. the investigating officer has not been produced by the prosecution.                   4. on behalf of the defence, three witnesses were examined mainly on the point that there was a counter version of the occurrence vide exhibit a by which the case of the appellant was that he was assaulted after having been abused by the informant and his two associates after a quarrel at the toddy shop of one ram chandra das.                   5. on going through the evidence of the material witnesses and the doctor as also the counter version which is a matter of record, in my opinion the conviction of the appellant u/s.307 i.p.c. is unwarranted. therefore, it is converted to one u/s.326 i.p.c. it also appears that the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years which shall be

Full Judgment

1. The appellant has been convicted u/s.307 I.P.C. and sentenced to R.I. for ten years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.273 of 1994/ 3 of 1996 by a judgment dated 27.1.1996.                 

2. The prosecution case is that on 5.3.1994 while the informant was taking betel the appellant came there and assaulted him thrice with knife, on account of which he was severely injured.

3. During trial the prosecution in all examined five witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3 is the brother of the informant and  even though he attempted to give  eye witness account of the  occurrence he conceded in his cross examination that he had  reached the place of occurrence after some time when the  occurrence was over. P.W.4, the only independent witness, has not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 is the doctor, who examined the informant, whereas P.W.2 is the informant himself. P.W.5 is a formal witness. The Investigating Officer has not been produced by the prosecution.                  

4. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses were examined mainly on the point that there was a counter version of the occurrence vide Exhibit A by which the case of the appellant was that he was assaulted after having been abused by the informant and his two associates after a quarrel at the toddy shop of one Ram Chandra Das.                  

5. On going through the evidence of the material witnesses and the doctor as also the counter version which is a matter of record, in my opinion the conviction of the appellant u/s.307 I.P.C. is unwarranted. Therefore, it is converted to one u/s.326 I.P.C. It also appears that the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years which shall be sufficient sentence for his conviction u/s.326 I.P.C.                   

6.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modifications.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial