) ------ Raju Thathera, son of Krishna Prasad Thathera, resident of Mohlichuwan, Hutti Bazar v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.397 of 2002 ------ (Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2002 passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2000) ------ Raju Thathera, son of Krishna Prasad Thathera, resident of Mohlichuwan, Hutti Bazar, P.S. Giridih (T), District Giridih. … … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent ------ PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. : SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. For the Appellant : Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, Advocate (Amicus Curiae) [Enrl. No.553/09] For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, A.P.P. ------ ------ J U D G M E N T By Court, : 29th November, 2024 This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2002 passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2000, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 I.P.C. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P. for the State and perused the materials available on record. 3.
Legal Reasoning
So far as the incident is concerned, we find that P.W.- 3, who is the informant, has narrated in his deposition exactly what he has stated in his fardbeyan. He stated that this appellant demanded that the passengers who were in the vehicle of the deceased should be shifted into his vehicle. The deceased opposed it, then this appellant threatened him of dire consequences. Thereafter, he drove the vehicle and smashed the deceased. This witness is an eye witness to the incident and there is nothing to disbelieve him. 11. P.W.-1 is an independent witness. He was a passenger of the vehicle. He stated that he was in the vehicle when altercation had taken place between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant threatened the deceased and thereafter drove the vehicle and smashed the deceased. There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve this witness. He being an absolutely independent neutral person, there is no occasion for 3 him to give any false statement before the Court about the incident. The medical evidence and the evidence of these two eye witnesses, clearly leads to the only conclusion that it is this appellant, who has committed the murder of the deceased. 12. The defence witness has produced the application (Ext.-A) seeking compensation as per the Motor Vehicles Act. The claim of compensation was filed by the mother and the wife of the deceased. They stated in their application that the deceased died because of motor accident. Thus, it is the case of the appellant that it is not a murder, it is a case of accident. We are not in agreement with the argument of learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant. Firstly, the wife and mother of the deceased are not the eye witnesses to the occurrence. In this case, there are eye witnesses who narrated the story as to how the deceased died. Further, if we see the situation from the angle of the deceased and his family members, it is an accident for them caused by motor vehicle but so far as appellant is concerned, it is a murder. With an intention to commit murder of the deceased, the appellant drove the vehicle and smashed him knowing fully well that his act will result in death of the deceased or will cause such injuries which are sufficient to cause death. Thus, in this case, Section 300 IPC is attracted which is punishable under Section 302 IPC. 13. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.05.2002 passed by Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- III, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No.128 of 2000, is hereby affirmed. The bail of the appellant is cancelled. He should surrender to serve the sentence. 14. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned. 15. 16.
Arguments
Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, learned Amicus Curiae representing the appellant submits that a road accident has been given the colour of murder. P.W.-1 is a chance witness and P.W.-3 who is the informant cannot be said to be an eye witness as there is discrepancy in his deposition and in his fardbeyan. He also argues that the wife and the mother of the deceased had filed an application under the Motor Vehicles Act claiming 1 compensation wherein they claimed that the deceased died because of the road accident, which demolishes the prosecution case. He further argues that the injury report also does not suggest that the deceased was crushed to death by a motor vehicle of this appellant. On these grounds, he prays for acquittal of the appellant. 4. Per contra, Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P. representing the State vehemently opposes the Criminal Appeal and submits that P.W.-1 is an independent witness and was a passenger who has exactly narrated what had happened. From his statement, it is clear that the deceased was murdered by this appellant. He further submits that the medical report also supports that the deceased died because of the injuries and the assault was made by hard and blunt substance. The Doctor found fracture of the frontal bone and left zygomatic bone. He also found that the right pinna was badly smashed which supports the prosecution case that the deceased was dashed by the vehicle and was murdered. 5. The prosecution story is based on the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.-3). He was present at the place of occurrence. He stated that both the deceased and the appellant were drivers of their respective passenger vehicles. Two passengers sat in the vehicle of the deceased when the appellant came with his vehicle and demanded that the passengers be shifted in his vehicle, to which the deceased objected and an altercation took place when this appellant threatened the deceased that he will smash the deceased with his vehicle. By saying this, he took his vehicle and dashed the deceased, as a result of which he died. 6. On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, F.I.R. being Giridih Town P.S. Case No.215/99 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the appellant and charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC. Thereafter cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. 7. To prove the prosecution case, total 09 witnesses have been examined. 2 8. P.W.-8 is the Doctor. He found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- External Injuries:- 1. Right pina badly smashed 2. Lacerated wound on right cheek 1” x ½” x skin deep 3. Lacerated wound on back 2” x 1”x skin deep 4. Bruise on left side of scalp over frontal area 3” x 2” 5. Bruise around left eye On Dissection:- Skull fracture of frontal bone and left zygomatic bone. Brain matter-blood present. Ribs intact. In the heart blood present in the right chamber. Lungs congested. Stomach contained dark blood. Liver kidney spleen congested. Mucosa NAD. Hyoid bone intact. Trachea- NAD. 9. The post-mortem report was marked as Ext.4. From his evidence and the post-mortem report, we find that the Doctor found that the right pina of the deceased was badly smashed. There were bruises and laceration. There was fracture on the frontal bone and left zygomatic bone. This clearly suggest that the deceased was dashed and the death was homicidal. 10.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Considering the sincere efforts put in by learned counsel Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, Amicus Curiae in assisting the Court in proper manner, for the disposal of this Appeal, we 4 direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Mr. Anisurzzama Khan, Advocate (Amicus Curiae). (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI Dated:- 29/11/2024 NAFR / Prashant 5