The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 872 of 2002 [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1997]. -------- 1. Motka Sundi son of late Motu Gagrai 2. Sukhlal @ Chinka Gagrai son of Ramdhan Gagrai 3. Sanjay Sundi son of Shri Jugal Kishore Sundi 4. Durga Charan Sundi son of Saluka Sundi 5. Chandra Mohan Sundi son of late Saluka Sundi 6. Sundi Ram Sundi son of late Damu Gagrai All are residents of village Lonjo, P.S. Sonuwa, District- APPELLANTS Singhbhum Jharkhand. (West), ........ Versus The State of Jharkhand ……… RESPONDENT …… For the Appellants : Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, Amicus Curiae. For the State : Mr. Azeemuddin, A.P.P. …… P R E S E N T SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
Legal Reasoning
From the evidence, led by the prosecution, we find that the main witnesses are P.W. 4, who is the son of the deceased and P.W.5, the Page/3 brother of the deceased. P.W.4 stated that his father was in the house and in the evening Bulo Sundi, Durga Sundi, Dom Sundi, Sika Gagrai, Motka Gagrai, Sundi Ram Sundi and Sadhu Sundi came to his house, caught his father and took him away. After some time, he found his father in unconscious state. He stated that due to assault, his father became senseless. He gave water to his father and talked with him also. On that night, no villagers came to his house. In the morning, again all the accused persons came to his house and took his father till then his father had died and they got his dead body cremated. He also identified the accused persons in Court. 11. P.W. 5 is another brother of the deceased. His house is at some distance from the house of the deceased. He stated that he went for his work as he is a labour and when he returned, he came to know about the said incident. The villagers did not tell him the name of the assailants. Thereafter, he went to see his brother on the same night but he was found sleeping. He saw the injury on the eyes and chest. He asked the injured about the assault when he stated that there was some quarrel with Sadhu Sundi then Sadhu Sundi and Sanjay Sundi caught hold and took him near a mango tree, which is beside the house of Madan Sundi and on that place by naming all the accused persons he stated that they had assaulted him with lathi, fists and slaps and thereafter he was left at home. This witness further stated that on the next day, he went to the house of his brother and he found his brother dead. On the dame day, in the afternoon, the appellant took the dead body. He also identified the accused persons. 12. The informant (P.W.3) exactly stated what he had narrated in the fardbeyan. From his statement, it is clear that he was not present at the time of occurrence but when he came to know about the incident, he went to the house of his brother i.e. the injured and saw him lying in injured condition. His brother narrated the entire incident to him and named the assailants, who are the appellants herein. 13. Thus from the evidence of these three witnesses, we find that P.W. 4, who was present in the house had seen Sadhu Sundi and Sanjay Page/4 Sundi taking the deceased. He had also seen that all these appellant bringing back his father in injured condition to his house. The informant (P.W.3) and P.W.5 had stated that they had gone to see his brother and they had seen the injury on the body of the deceased. Both have stated that his brother in injured condition had narrated the entire facts taking the name of these appellant, who had assaulted him. 14. Thus, we are of the opinion that the deceased had narrated before these witnesses as to how the incident had happened and the persons who have assaulted him. The statement of the deceased that Sadhu Sundi and Sanjay Sundi tied his hand with a mango tree is substantiated by the statement of the son of the deceased. The fact that the appellants brought him (the deceased) back to his house in injured condition has also been proved by the prosecution, from the evidence of his son. Exactly, similar fact had been narrated by the deceased to his brothers, who are P.Ws. 3 and 5. All these three witnesses have seen the mark of assault on the body of the deceased. Thus, there is nothing to disbelieve them. 15. Admittedly, the dead body was burnt by the villagers as well as the appellants. The cause of death could not be ascertained but the fact that the deceased was assaulted by the appellants, has been substantiated in this case by the statement of P.Ws. 3 and 5, which they had gathered from the mouth of the deceased. The assault was made by sticks and fists and slaps as narrated by the witness. 16. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the appellants had any premeditation to commit murder of the deceased. The prosecution has not brought any material to suggest that there was any intention on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. Admittedly, no deadly sharp cutting weapon or like any other weapon was used to assault the deceased. There is nothing in evidence to suggest that the injury in normal course was sufficient to cause death. The deceased was assaulted by sticks and fists and slaps. 17. The fact, which has come in the evidence about the assault of the deceased, gives us impression that this case cannot come within the Page/5 purview of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which is punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, we convert the sentence of the appellants from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 part-II IPC. 18. Now, so far as sentence is concerned, we find that the appellants have already remained in custody for more than 12 years. We thus reduce the sentence of the appellants to the period which they have already undergone. Since the appellants are already on bail, they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds, so are the bailors. 19. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment and sentence, this appeal is dismissed. 20. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment. 21. 22.
Arguments
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. …... J U D G M E N T Dated: 12.12.2024: By Court The learned Amicus appears before this Court virtually and he has no complaint in respect of audio and video clarity and quality. 2. It has been informed that appellant No. 5, namely, Chandra Mohan Sundi son of Late Saluka Sundi has died and there is no substitution petition. Thus, this appeal stands abated qua appellant No. 5 (Chandra Mohan Sundi). 3. This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2002 and order of sentence dated 27.11.2002 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 333 of 1997, whereby and whereunder, Page/1 the appellants having been found guilty of charge under Sections 201/34 and 302/34 of Indian Penal Code, have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and seven years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, respectively. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the FIR, evidences and all other documents. 5. The prosecution case as it appears from fardbeyan of the informant Kedar Bari- P.W.3 (the brother of the deceased) is that when 10.4.1997at night he returned from Sonua Market, he could come to know that his younger brother- Bijay Bari had some altercation with villager- Sadhu Sundi in the evening, due to which, Sadhu Sundi became enraged and he along with his cousin Sanjay Sundi tied the hands of Bijay Bari from behind and took him near the house of Madan Sundi. Thereafter, they tied him with a mango tree. Both these two accused along with villagers Chandra Mohan Sundi, Motka Gagrai, Sukhlal Gagrai @ Chinka Gagrai, Sundi Ram Sundi, Durga Sundi armed with sticks assaulted the brother of the informant with sticks, fists and slaps. Thereafter, they brought Bijay Bari in injured condition and left him in his house. The informant has stated in the fardbeyan that on receiving the aforesaid information, he had gone to the house of his brother to see him. The injured was crying and on query, he stated that when they were talking in his courtyard then Sahdu Sundi obstructed them, resulting in an altercation. Upon this, Sadhu Sundi and his cousin came and tied him with a rope and took him near the house of Madan Sundi and tied him with a mango tree. Thereafter, the villagers along with these appellants had assaulted him with sticks, fists and slaps and dragged him back and left him in his house. The informant further stated that his brother had sustained injuries on his hand, head, back, leg, thigh, knee. The accused persons had threatened everyone not to complain this matter to the police. The son of the deceased was sitting and weeping who told that he had seen the occurrence. On next day morning, when the informant went to the house of his brother, he found him dead, then he went to the house Page/2 of Yogendra Sundi, the Ex-Sarpanch of the village to give him the aforesaid information, but he was not present. He then went to the house of village Munda namely, Behra Diggi. The village Munda came to the house of his brother and saw the dead body and then convened a Panchayat. The Village Munda ordered to cremate the dead body and the dead body was cremated. The informant could not make any protest as the appellants threatened him. He stated that the occurrence was also witnessed by his younger brother- Muliya Bari. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, the FIR being Sonua P.S. Case No. 5 of 1997 was registered under Sections 302/201/34 IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for committing the offence and accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charges were framed and trial proceeded. 6. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether seven witnesses, who are as follows:- PW-1: PW-2: PW-3: PW-4: PW-5: PW-6: PW-7 Bisangi Kui, Jogen Sundi, Kedar Bari (the informant), Rui Das Bari @ Rudesh Bari, Muliya Bari, Devendra Sandil, and Dr. Lallan Choudhary. 7. 8. Several documents have also been exhibited in this case. After closure of evidences, the statements of these appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which the appellants have pleaded innocence. 9. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charges levelled against these appellants to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid, thus this appeal. 10.
Decision
Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of. The learned amicus assisted this Court in proper manner. In a very short time, he got himself fully prepared. Considering the able assistance of the amicus, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred) to the learned counsel Mr. Rohit Ranjan Sinha, as his remuneration. 23. Let a copy of this judgment be also sent to the High Court Legal Services Committee for doing the needful. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi. Dated: the 12th December, 2024. NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3. Page/6