High Court
Case Details
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 388 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 26.02.2015 and order of sentence dated 03.03.2015 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2014] Pashupati Nayak son of Late Surendra Nayak resident of Village Bhagabodi, P.O. & P.S. Baharagora, District East Singhbhum (Jharkhand) --Versus-- The State of Jharkhand .... .... …. Appellant …. …. …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Special P.P. ----- PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ----- JUDGMENT Reserved on: 28.08.2024 Pronounced On: 05.09.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC by the learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila. 2. As per the F.I.R. lodged by Amrati Nayak (P.W. 5), on 11.01.2014 the incidence took place while she was preparing food and her husband-Madhu Nayak was singing and dancing on the occasion of Makar festival. In the meantime, her neighbor Pashupati Nayak came to her home with Tangi and abused her husband. When her husband tried to stop him, then Pashupati Nayak started quarrelling with her husband and dragged him upto his house where he was assaulted with Tangi, as a result he became unconscious and fell down. When the informant rushed to his rescue, she was also inflicted bleeding injury over her right hand. During course of his treatment, he died. 3. On investigation, charge sheet was submitted against him and after cognizance and commitment, he was put on trial under Sections 302, 452, 341, 324, 307 of the IPC. Altogether ten witnesses have been examined in this case and relevant documents including the injury report and post-mortem report have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1 – 5. 4. Judgment of conviction has been assailed on the ground that there are major contradictions appearing in the testimony of informant (P.W. 5) and her daughter (P.W. 7). There is no past enmity and the incidence took place on a sudden quarrel and 1 therefore, offence under Section 302 of the IPC will not be made out. 5. 6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. Informant (P.W. 5) is the wife of the deceased and incidence took place in front of her house and therefore, she can be accepted as a natural witness to the incidence. She was also injured in the said incidence and her injury report has also been proved. Law is settled that the presence of an injured witness is assured at the place of occurrence and therefore, her testimony is entitled to a higher degree of credence. Further, in normal course of human conduct, an injured witness will not implicate a person falsely, leaving aside the main assailant. She has specifically deposed about the manner of incidence that the appellant came to her home and quarreled with her husband. He then dragged her husband upto his house where he inflicted three Tangi blows over his head causing bleeding injuries. When she tried to rescue her husband, she was also inflicted with Tangi blow. This part of her deposition is corroborated by her daughter (P.W. 7). Nothing significant has come up in her cross examination to doubt veracity of her account. P.W. 4 is a neighbor, who has deposed that she did not see the incidence, but when on hulla, she went there and found Madhu Nayak lying on the ground in an injured condition, whereas Pashupati Nayak was fleeing from there. P.W. 6-Ranjit Nayak is a neighbor, who has fully corroborated the testimony of P.W. 5 (informant of the case). He has deposed that the appellant inflicted three tangi blows to the deceased. At the time of incidence, his wife was also present there. P.W. 7 is the daughter of the deceased and was present at the time of incidence and corroborated the testimony of her mother regarding the factum of incidence. 7. From the testimony of witnesses, the factum of incidence is proved to the hilt. P.W. 9 is the Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body and found following ante mortem injuries: - Incised wound 1½” x ½” x ¼” on the right side of forehead. I. II. Bruise 4”x 3” on right parietal aspect of scalp. III. Bruise 5”x 4” frontal aspect of the scalp. IV. Lacerated wound 2 ½” x ¼” bone deep on middle of the forehead. V. Fractur of the frontal bone and scalp. VI. Subdural hematoma over right parietal and temporal region of the brain. Doctor opined that the death was caused due to coma following injuries to the vital organ i.e. brain. The injury of the informant has also been proved as Exhibit 2 which was simple in nature. 8. From the above evidence, it can be safely concluded that the incidence took place on the eve of Makar Sankranti, when the villagers were in a festive mood and 2 were having drinks and were dancing. It was at this juncture that without any provocation, the appellant picked up quarrel with the deceased, dragged the deceased and indiscriminately assaulted him resulting in critical injuries on the vital part of the body which can be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Although the incidence took place on the spur of moment in a sudden quarrel, but the appellant acted in a most cruel manner and inflicted more than one injury on the vital part of the body i.e. head by dangerous weapon resulting in the instantaneous death. Therefore, this case will not come within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. Considering the nature of injuries, appellant can be credited with requisite knowledge to commit the offence of murder. Under the circumstance for the reasons discussed above, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned court below is affirmed. Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
Decision
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Ananda Sen, J.) Per Ananda Sen, J. I agree. High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, 5th September, 2024 AFR/Anit 3