). 1.Man Singh Banra 2.Har Singh Banra ……… Both sons of L. Latka Banra v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 197 of 2002 ….. (Against the judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2002 and order of learned Sessions Judge, sentence dated 20.04.2002, passed by Saraikela Kharswan at Saraikela, in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2001). 1.Man Singh Banra 2.Har Singh Banra ……… Both sons of L. Latka Banra, R/o Village- Chamrudih, P.S. Kharsawan District- Saraikella, Kharswan. 3.Atba @ Raibu Honhaga, S/o Faudab Honhaga, R/o Village Nayadih, P.S. Kharsawan, District- Saraikela- Kharswan Versus ….. Appellants The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent ……… For the Appellants For the State
Legal Reasoning
course to cause death. Thus, in our view, this case falls under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. The appellants are thus acquitted for the charge under Section 302/34 of IPC and are convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC. 13. The occurrence had taken place sometime in the year, 2000 when these appellants were aged about 20 to 28 years. 14. Now, these appellants must be aged about 44 to 52 years. Considering their age and the rigor of the protracted litigation which they have faced and overall facts and circumstances, the sentence is reduced to the period which they had already undergone. 15. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the sentence and finding. 16. As these appellants are already on bail, they and their bailors are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 17. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith.
Arguments
: Mr. Abhay Kr. Tiwari, Advocate Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, AddI. Public Prosecutor ----------- PRESENT Sri Ananda Sen, J. Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. J U D G M E N T 25.10.2024 Per Ananda Sen, J.: The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of these appellants under Sections 302/34 and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 18.04.2002 and order of sentence dated 20.04.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan at Seraikella, in Sessions Trial No.67 of 2001 whereby they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for six months under Sections 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants, challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence stated that the entire occurrence happened on spur of moment and on provocation. He further submits that there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased, which would be apparent from the evidence. Though, it 1 has been alleged that Atba @ Raibu Honhaga had assaulted with sword, but no sharp cut injury was found and there is no evidence that the deceased died because of the injury sustained by use of the sword. P.W.-2, P.W.-6, P.W.-7 are injured witnesses and eye witnesses, but their injuries are simple in nature, which is clear from the testimony of P.W.-1, the Doctor who had examined them. He further submits that this case cannot come with a purview of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned counsel for the State submits that the deceased was indiscriminately assaulted, as a result of which he died. Though there was an altercation between the parties, but this case according to the evidence will come under Section 302 of IPC. 4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of informant, Hari Shankar Mahato (P.W.-6), who stated that they were returning home after participating in a cock fight. As they had won the cock, these appellants came and snatched the same and took the same to their house. When they went to the house of Raibu Honhaga and demand the cock, these appellants refused to return. An altercation started thereafter, the informant and others were chased and assaulted by these appellants. He stated that Man Singh Bandra and Hari Singh Banra were carrying hockey stick and Raibu Honhaga was carrying the sword. Gokul was also assaulted as a result of which, he sustained injury and thereafter, he died. 5. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Kharsawan P.S. Case No.42 of 2000 was registered under Sections 341/323/324/325/307/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation, filed chargesheet against these appellants under Sections 341, 323, 324, 325, 307, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 6. The Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellants pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Section 302/34 and 307/34 of IPC and they were put on trial. Ten witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- (i) P.W.-1 Radha Raman Choudhary 2 (ii) P.W.-2 Nirmal Tanti (iii) P.W.-3 Bauri Tanti (iv) P.W.-4 Banbasi Tanti (v) P.W.-5 Sulah Tanti (vi) P.W.-6 Hari Shankar Mahato, informant in this case (vii)P.W.-7 Shyam Sundar Mahato (viii) P.W.-8 Ram Nath Mahato (ix) P.W.-9 Nandji Prasad, Investigating Officer in this case (x) Dr. Ajit Sharan 7. The following documentary evidence were exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1- Writing and signature on Medical report Exhibit-1/1- Writing and signature on Medical report Exhibit- 1/2 Writing and signature on Medical report Exbibit-2 signature on death report Exhibit- 3 signature on fardbeyan Exhibit-3/1 signature on fardbeyan Exhibit-3/2 signature on death report Exhibit-3/3 signature on seizure list Exhibit-3/4 signature on seizure list Exhibit-4 Writing and signature on fardbeyan Exhibit-5 signature on F.I.R. Exhibit-6 Writing and signature on death report Exhibit-7 Writing and signature on injury report Exhibit-8 Writing and signature on injury report Exhibit-8/1 Writing and signature on injury report Exhibit-8/2 Writing and signature on injury report Exhibit-9 Postmortem report. 8. The Trial Court after completion of the prosecution evidence examined these appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and after hearing the parties, convicted these appellants under sections 302/34 and 323/34 of IPC and sentenced them as aforesaid. 9. We have gone through the evidence led by the parties. P.W.-10 is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem of the deceased. The report was marked as Exhibit-9, The report proves that the death of the deceased is homicidal. The Doctor found the following injuries:- “(i) Lacerated wound on back of scalp 1 ½” x 1” x fracture of parital bone laceration of brain, clotted and liquid blood present. (ii) Lacerated wound on chin 1 ½” x 1/2” x fracture of lower jaw. 3 (iii) Lacerated wound of a lower limb ½” x ¼” x ¼” fracture of lower incisor, or canine one teeth. He opined that the injuries were antemortem and caused by hard and blunt substance. The cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. The Doctor in paragraph 7 has specifically stated that no injury was caused by any sharp cutting weapon and he did not find any sharp cut injury on the body of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved that this is a case of culpable homicide. It is also proved about there was no assault by sharp cutting weapon, meaning thereby that sword was not used. 10. The next contention would be whether this culpable homicide is murder or not and whether there was any intention of the appellants to cause death or to cause any such bodily injury which is likely to cause death. 11. In this case, the injured witnesses are P.W.-2, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7. P.W.-6 is the informant. They stated that while they were returning with the cock after the cock fight, their cock was snatched and taken to the house of Man Singh Banra and was concealed. They demanded the cock which these appellants refused to return, resulting in an altercation. Then, these appellants chased them with hockey stick and sword. Raibu Honhaga was having a sword and others were having stick. These witnesses were also assaulted. Doctor who has examined the injured is P.W.-1. He stated that he has examined the injured and he had found only simple injury on the body of the injured. There is nothing in the evidence of these eye witnesses to suggest that there was any intention to commit murder or inflict such bodily injury, which would likely to cause death. As per the postmortem report there was only one blow on the head of the deceased and rest were on the limb and jaws. As held earlier the injury on the witnesses were simple in nature. 4 12. Thus, we come to the conclusion that there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased. In absence of any intention, these appellants cannot be convicted under Section 302 of IPC. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that these appellants had knowledge that this assault would result in death and is sufficient in the ordinary course, to cause death. Be it noted that the Doctor also has not mentioned that these injuries were sufficient in the ordinary
Decision
18. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 25/10/2024 NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03. 5