BIJOY OKAND PATRA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL
LAWS(SC)-1951-12-1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on December 14,1951

BIJOY OKAND PATRA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF WEST BENGAL Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

STATE VS. PURAN CHAND [LAWS(HPH)-1954-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
TATA RAVI VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2005-8-94] [REFERRED TO]
KHALLE FODALIA VS. HARNARAYAN SUNDERLAL [LAWS(MPH)-1957-7-6] [REFERRED TO]
B N RAMAKRISHNA NAIDU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-1954-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHADEO S O BHIWAJI TUMDAM VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
ARUMUGAM VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-4-296] [REFERRED TO]
ABBU ALIAS KATTI ALIAS MUNISWAMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1954-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
GANESH VS. GOPI [LAWS(RAJ)-1953-2-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NATH SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1997-2-87] [FOLLOWED ON]
RAKESH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-253] [REFERRED TO]
KHALLE VS. HARNARAIN [LAWS(MPH)-1957-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
MOIRANGTHEM CHAOBA SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-1982-2-8] [REFERRED TO]
SAWAI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1976-9-23] [REFERRED TO]
GANJIA PATRA VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-1999-10-31] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA BAHRI GURBACHAN SINGH RAJ PAL SHARMA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1994-7-112] [RELIED ON]
SHOBHIT CHAMAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(SC)-1998-3-76] [CITED]
MAIMAI SHAH VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-1957-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
ANNA VS. STATE OF HYDERABAD [LAWS(APH)-1955-11-9] [REFERRED TO]
SAMUNDER SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1963-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
DWIJABAR ALIAS DWIJAPADA HALDER VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-1996-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1957-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
R RAJENDRAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER [LAWS(MAD)-1998-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
KISHNA MATU RAM VS. STATE [LAWS(P&H)-1966-12-16] [REFERRED TO]
CHHIGANLAL VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-1952-2-16] [REFERRED TO]
HARILAL TELI VS. CHATURI TELI [LAWS(GAU)-1967-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
HANIF USMANBHAI KALVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
NASIMUDDIN ALIAS AZAD NIZAMUDDIN HAFIZ VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2015-10-226] [REFERRED]
R S DAHIYA; SHER SINGH; ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE (THROUGH NCT OF DELHI); GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI; STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
R S DAHIYA; SHER SINGH; ANIL KUMAR VS. STATE (THROUGH NCT OF DELHI); GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI; STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2018-1-100] [REFERRED TO]
REVANESHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-221] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Fazl Ali, J. - (1.)This is an appeal against the Judgment of the High Court at Calcutta upholding the order of the sessions Judge of Midnapore convicting the appellant under S. 326, Penal Code, and sentencing him to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment.
(2.)The prosecution case against the appellant may be shortly stated as follows:- The appellant and the injured person, Kumad Patra, are first cousins, and they live in a village called Andaria, their houses being only 3 or 4 cubits apart from each other. They had a dispute about a pathway adjoining their houses, which lead to a tank, and they quarrelled about it on 11-7-1949. Two days later, on 13th July, when Kumad Patra was washing his hands at the brink of the village tank, the appellant came from behind and inflicted on him 17 injuries, with the result that two of his fingers had to be amputated and a piece of bone had to be extracted from his left thumb. The police being informed, started investigation and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant who was finally committed to the Court of Session and tried by the Sessions Judge and a jury. He was charged under S. 307, Penal Code, but the jury returned a verdict of guilty against him under S. 326, Penal Code, and the learned Sessions Judge accepting the verdict convicted him under that section as aforesaid. When the matter came up in appeal to the High Court, a rule was issued on the appellant calling upon him to show cause why his sentence should not be enhanced, but, at the final hearing, the rule was discharged, his appeal was dismissed, and his conviction and the original sentence were upheld.
(3.)The first point urged on behalf of the appellant before us is that, inasmuch as there was no charge under S. 326, Penal Code, and the offence under that section was not a minor offence with reference to an offence under S. 307 of the Code, he could not have been convicted under the former section. This argument however overlooks the provisions of S. 237, Criminal P. C. That section, after referring to S. 236, which provides that alternative charges may be drawn up against an accused person where it is doubtful which of several offences the facts which can be proved will constitute, states as follows:
'If ....... the accused is charged with one offence, and it appears in evidence that he committed a different offence for which he might have been charged under the provisions of that section, he may be convicted of the offence which he is shown to have committed, although he was not charged with it."

There can be no doubt that on the facts of this case, it was open to the Sessions Judge to charge the appellant alternatively under Ss. 307 and 326, Penal Code. The case therefore clearly falls under S. 237, Criminal P. C., and the appellant's conviction under S. 326, Penal Code, was proper even in the absence of a charge.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.