Mahendra Mahto, Son of Khelo Mahto, resident of Village- Dariya, P.S.-Ichak, District- Hazaribagh. … v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 241 of 2003 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 10.12.2002 and Order of sentence dated 12.12.2002 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribag, in Sessions Trial No. 345 of 2001] Mahendra Mahto, Son of Khelo Mahto, resident of Village- Dariya, P.S.-Ichak, District- Hazaribagh. ….. Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ….. Respondent For the Appellant For the Respondent --------- : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate. Mr. Nawin Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Arvind Prajapati, Advocate. : Mr. Subodh Kumar Dubey, A.P.P. --------- PRESENT SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. -------- JUDGMENT Dated: 02nd December, 2024 By Court: Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned APP appearing for the State. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion that this case cannot fall within the ambit of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code rather it will fall within Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. Page | 5
Arguments
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that on aggression, one blow was given by this appellant upon the deceased, who is none, but the father of this appellant. He submits that since the father has levelled an allegation against the appellant that he has stolen rice, this appellant, being enraged by false allegation, has assaulted him. As per him, the doctor has opined that only one blow was given. Since, there was no repeated blow, Section 302 of the I.P.C. cannot be applied in this case. Page | 1 As per him, this case falls within Exception-4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the deceased is none, but the father of the appellant and the assault was made by an axe. Thus, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is attracted in this case. 4. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the records. As per the fardbayan of Hero Mahto, who is the second brother of this appellant, the father of the appellant and the informant rebuked this appellant by accusing him that he has stolen rice from the house of his father. The appellant, being enraged, took out an axe from his house and assaulted on the head of his father, causing bleeding injury. 5. Based on the aforesaid fardbayan, initially the case was instituted under Section 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against this appellant. In course of treatment, the deceased died, which led to addition of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The Police investigated the occurrence and filed the charge sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. During trial, the prosecution has examined altogether 11 witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, Jainandan Mahto, P.W.-2, Halo Mahto, P.W.-3, Sarita Page | 2 Devi, P.W.-4, Hero Mahto, P.W.-5, Punit Mahto, P.W.-6, Manju Devi, P.W.-7, Baleshwar Prasad, P.W.-8, Khagia Devi, P.W.-9, Amarjeet Singh, P.W.-10, Dr. S.K. Sinha and P.W.-11, Moti Ram. 7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence did not choose to adduce any evidence. The trial court, thereafter convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to R.I. for life. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed this appeal. The appellant has been convicted for committing offence under Section 302 of the Indian penal Code. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder, which is as follows: 8. 9. 300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or— 2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or— 3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be Page | 3 inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or— 4thly.—If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. 10. There are five exceptions to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Exception-4 of Section 300 reads as follows: Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 11. Thus, as per Exception-4, if a homicidal death is caused in spur of moment in sudden altercation, without any premeditation, the same will not come within the definition of murder, to be punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. In this case, P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. They have stated in their evidence that this appellant had stolen rice from his father and his father rebuke. It is consistent evidence that after the father rebuked this appellant, the appellant brought an axe and assaulted his father on his head. Page | 4 13. P.W.-10 is Doctor S.K. Sinha. He conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. He found only one injury on the body, which is as follows: (i) Eyes were closed, mouth was open, R.M. absent on both upper and lower limbs. (ii) Lacerated wound, 2” x 1/2” x deep 2 brain tissues on back portion of head and brain tissues were lacerated with clot. Liver, spine, kidney, lungs were intact. 14. As per him, the death is caused due to aforesaid injury. Post mortem report has been marked as Exhibit-2. 15. From the evidence of doctor and the post mortem report, we find that only one blow was given on the deceased. Further, from the evidence of the eye-witnesses, we find that verbal altercation had taken place between the appellant and the deceased, as the deceased has branded the appellant as “thief” alleging that he has stolen rice from his house. In a sudden spur of moment, out of rage, one blow was given with an axe. 16. Considering the nature of evidence, especially Exception-4 of
Decision
17. Thus, we set aside the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and convict him for committing offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. 18. So far sentence is concerned, considering the age and the date of occurrence, which is some time in the year 2000 and the period, the appellant has faced the trial, we sentence the appellant to undergo R.I. for a period of five years. Since, the appellant is on bail, his bail is cancelled. He is directed to surrender and serve the rest of the sentence. 19. This appeal is dismissed with modification in sentence. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 02.12.2024 Sunil-Simran/NAFR Page | 6