The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.190 of 2002 [Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 01.05.2002, passed by learned 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No.98/96 (T.R. No.14/96)]. 1.Lomba Pahan @ Lambo Bahengra, S/o Soma Pahan 2.Topal Pahan @ Topal Bhengra, S/o Late Soma Pahan Both residents of Village- Paira Kisu Toli, P.S. Torpa, District- Ranchi. …. Versus Appellants The State of Jharkhand. ….. Respondent
Legal Reasoning
11. From the documentary evidence as well as oral, we find that there was minor quarrel erupted for a meagre sum of Rs. 100/- among these two appellants and one Yadu Bhengra. We also find that the deceased who was not even a party to the quarrel, but was known to both the parties went to intervene the matter and separated the party(s) as they were fighting with each other. The Doctor found that there was knife injury on the thigh of the deceased. The witness who had seen the occurrence also admitted that the injury caused on the thigh. From the post-mortem report and evidence of the Doctor, we find that there was only one injury which would suggest that no repeated blow was given by the appellant no.2 (Topal Pahan @ Topal Bhengra). 12. So far appellant no.1 (Lomba Pahan @ Lambo) is concerned, admittedly there is no allegation nor there is any evidence that he had assaulted the deceased. The highest allegation against him is that he caught-hold of the deceased when there was scuffle going on. 13. Thus, from the evidence on record, we come to the conclusion that there was no intention of the appellant(s) to commit murder of the deceased and even if confessional statement is considered, the assault is accidental in nature and there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased. Further, from the evidence of the Doctor, we find that he has not stated that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 14. Accordingly, we conclude that the ingredients of Section 302 IPC is missing in this case. Considering the nature of injury, and part of body in which it was inflicted, the case would fall under Section 326/34 of the IPC i.e., against the accused/appellant no.2- Topal Pahan @ Topal Bhengra. 3 15. What has been considered and noted above, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the appellants are found guilty for the offence under Section 326/34 of the IPC. Order of sentence is also modified to the period already undergone by the appellants as the same will suffice to meet the ends of justice. As such, the sureties are discharged from the liability(s) of their bail bonds.
Arguments
SRI ANANDA SEN, J. P R E S E N T SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ….. : : For the Appellant For the State Mr. Manjeet Kr. Choudhary, Advocate Mrs. Priya Shrestha, SPP ….. 22.10.2024 JUDGMENT By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 01.05.2002, passed by learned 1st Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No.98/96 (T.R. No.14/96) whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 /34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life. 2. The F.I.R is at the instance of informant (P.W. 2) Dumka Bhengra and he stated that on 25.03.1995 in the evening at about 6 to 7 pm, there was quarrel between the Yadu Bhengra and these appellants in relation to payment of some money. As per F.I.R., Topal Bhengra (appellant no.2) had taken Rs. 100/- from Yadu Bhengra in some months before. Yadu Bhengra demanded the said money and for this quarrel started and they assaulted each other. It is alleged that Potia Bhengra who is the brother of the informant intervened between them and tried to resolve the issue. It is further stated that the accused Lomba Bhengra and Topal Bhengra caught the brother of the informant and Topal Bhengra gave knife blow to Potia Bhengra. Potia, after receiving injury fell down and died. 1 3. On the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, F.I.R. being Torpa PS Case No. 34 of 1995 was registered against the accused persons under Section 302/34 of the IPC. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken as well as charge was framed and the accused persons were put on trial. 4. To bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses i.e., P.W.1- Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shandilya, P.W.2- Dumka Bhengra, P.W.3- Alakhsius Bhengra, P.W.4- Monka Bhengra, P.W.5- Sahay Lakhra and P.W.6, Seema Sinha (Judicial Magistrate). 5. P.W. 2 (Dumka Behngra) is the informant of the case and he stated that there was quarrel going on between Yadu Bhengra and these two appellants. The incidence had occurred in front of the house of Yadu Bhengra as Lomba (appellant no. 1) had lent a sum of Rs. 100/- to Yadu and was demanding the same. To pacify both the parties, Potia Bhengra went there when Lomba caught the neck of Potia and Topal gave a knife blow on the thigh of Potia and Potia died due to aforesaid injury. Further, he admitted that Potia is his brother and the occurrence had taken place at Akhara. Both Potia and this witness reside in the same house, as he admitted this while lodging the FIR. 6. P.W. 3 is Alakhsius Bhengra and he stated that he had seen these appellants quarrelling with Jadu Bhengra. He also stated that dispute was in respect of payment of Rs. 100/- as the same was given by him to Lomba while they were working at Himachal Pradesh. He further stated that he returned to his house after seeing the quarrel, but soon thereafter heard alarm and when he reached the place of occurrence, he found the deceased had already been assaulted by knife and he was lying dead in the Akhara. He also stated that there was injury on the right thigh of the deceased. He admitted that he had not seen the assault. 7. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the person of the deceased has been examined as P.W. 1. The post-mortem report is exhibited and marked as Ext.1. He stated that he found stab one injury on the left thigh, direction of which was obliquely backward and was caused by sharp cutting weapon such as dagger. The size of the injury was 1 & 1/2” x 1” x 3” cutting all the underlying structures and femoral artery. 2 8. 9. The I.O. has been examined as P.W. 5 who conducted the investigation and proved the fardbeyan and the same was marked as Ext. 3. He found blood at the place of occurrence till the courtyard of Jadu Bhengra where the dead body was found lying. He found blood mark on a log of wood also. P.W. 6 is the Judicial Officer who recorded the confessional statement of the Topal Pahan (appellant no.2) and his confessional statement was proved by her and marked as Ext. 5. 10. Learned SPP for the State has defended the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.
Decision
16. The instant Criminal Appeal (DB) is partly allowed. 17. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of. 18. Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 22.10. 2024. sandeep/pawan 4