). ……… Gangadhar Munda, S/o Late Ban Singh Munda R/o Village Pardih, P.S. Kasmar v. ……… …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 675 of 2003 ….….. (Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2003 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No.248 of 1996). ……… Gangadhar Munda, S/o Late Ban Singh Munda R/o Village Pardih, P.S. Kasmar, District- Bokaro The State of Jharkhand Versus ……… ….. Appellant(s) …. Respondent(s) For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
From the evidence, we find that main witnesses are P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 (informant) and P.W.-5, who are infact the eye witness to the said occurrence. When we go through the entire testimony of these eye witnesses, we find that they had stated that Ranjeet and others came to the house of this appellant and they were demanding a goat. An altercation took place and these witnesses had stated that they had seen the appellant giving one blow on the head of the deceased with dabi. Their evidence is consistent and there is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of these eye witnesses. Thus, from the testimony, we come to the conclusion that it is this appellant who had given a dabi blow on the head of the deceased. Further, it is apparent from the evidence, that only one blow was given on the head. 11. To prove the homicidal death, the prosecution has examined P.W.-8, who is the Doctor. He conducted the postmortem of the deceased and found the following injuries:- “(i) Incised wound 8”x 1/6” x scalp deep on the right parietal region of the scalp. On Dissection Comminuted fracture 4”x ¼ “x brain matter cortex deep on the right parietal bone. A fragment of the bone embedded into the brain matter. Meninges torn and lacerated. The brain matter torn and lacerated on the right side of the parietal lobe. The cranial cavity was filled with blood and blood clots. The viscera’s were pale left side of the heart was empty. Right side contained clotted blood. Stomach contained digested food materials.” We find from the postmortem report that only one blow was given on the head. 12. Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC reads as follows:- 3 300. 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 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. Exception 1 to 3 …… 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. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5…… As per the aforesaid section, if in a sudden fight, in heat of the passion, after some altercation, the assault took place, Exception 4 can be applied. 13. In this case, we find that there is consistent evidence that an altercation had taken place and thereafter, only one blow was given in the heat of passion by this appellant on the head with dabi. The dabi is a common instrument used for cutting grass, which is found in every village household. Further, the death had taken place after eleven days of the assault. All these facts clearly suggests that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Thus, this case squarely falls under Exception 4 of Section 300. Since, this case would fall under Exception 4 of Section 300, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC is not justified. He can only be convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC as there was no intention to commit murder. Thus, the judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC. 4 14. So far as sentence is concerned, since he had already remained in custody for more than eight years, his sentence is reduced to the period which he had already undergone. 15. Accordingly, with the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 16. As this appellant is already on bail, he and his bailors are discharged from the liabilities of the bail bonds. 17.
Arguments
: Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae : Mr. Anup Pawan Toppo, AddI. Public Prosecutor ----------- PRESENT Sri Ananda Sen, J. Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. J U D G M E N T 09.12.2024 By Court: At 10:30 A.M. No one appears on behalf of the appellant on repeated calls. 2. Thus, we appoint Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned counsel as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court and argue this Criminal Appeal on behalf of the appellant. 3.This matter will be taken up today at 02:15 P.M. 4. Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, learned Amicus Curiae has already obtained the soft copy of the entire documents. At 02:15 P.M. 5. Heard, Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Anup Pawan Toppo learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 6. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 23.01.2003 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat, in S.T. No.248 of 1 1996, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC. 7. The F.I.R. was registered on 30.11.1995 on the basis of the farbeyan of informant (Fagu Munda), P.W.-4, who had stated that he, deceased and one Lalji Munda went to the house of this appellant and Haradhan Munda and stated that the informant had given one goat in the marriage, so they should also give a goat in the marriage of Ranjeet Munda. On hearing this, this appellant and Haradhan Munda denied and refused to give a goat. Some altercation took place, as a result of which Gangadhar Munda took on Dabi (a sharp instrument used for cutting grass) and gave one blow on the head of Ranjeet. Further, it is alleged that Haradhan Munda also with stick assaulted Lalji Munda. 8. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Kasmar P.S. Case No.60 of 1995 was registered under Sections 323/324/307/337/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant and thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Sections 302/34 of IPC against the appellant and he was put on trial. 9. Prosecution has examined nine witnesses in this case, who are as follows:- P.W.-1 Lalji Munda P.W.-2 Jagarnath Munda P.W.-3 Dhani Ram Munda P.W.-4 Fagu Munda, informant P.W.-5 Akalu Ghansi P.W.-6 Dr. Shailendra Kumar P.W.-7 Sona Ram Munda P.W.-8 Dr. Ratneshwar Prasad Verma P.W.-9 Rajib Kumar 10. The following documents were also exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 Signature of P.W.-4 on fardbeyan Exhibit-1/1 Signature of P.W.-7 on Inquest report Exhibit-1/2 Signature of Surendra Nath Mahto on inquest report 2 Exhibit-2 Injury report of Lalji Munda Exhibit-2/1 Injury report of Fagu Munda Exhibit-2/2 Injury report of Ranjeet Munda Exhibit-3 Postmortem report Exhibit-4 F.I.R. Exhibit-5 Fardbeyan Exhibit-6 Para 1-32 of Case diary Exhibit-7 Para 33-62 of Case diary.
Decision
Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 18. Considering the proper assistance of learned Amicus Curiae in disposal of this case, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Mr. Ravi Kumar Singh, the learned Amicus Curiae. 19. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 09/12/2024 AFR /R.S./ Cp 03. 5