Abhiram Barla, S/o Late Martin Barla, R/o Village Kutaniya, Sirkipani, P.O. & P.S.- Thethai v. …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 377 of 2016 [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2016 (sentence passed on 26.02.2016/01.03.2016) passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2014] Abhiram Barla, S/o Late Martin Barla, R/o Village Kutaniya, Sirkipani, P.O. & P.S.- Thethai Tangar, District- Simdega ……….. Versus … … Appellant The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent For the Appellant For the State ……….. : Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl. P.P. P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ……….. JUDGMENT By Court: Heard Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2016 (sentence
Legal Reasoning
passed on 26.02.2016/01.03.2016) passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Nimi Kandulna recorded on 05.08.2014, in which, it has been stated that her mother-in-law namely, Munika Kandulna was living in the house of her mother and elder sister of her mother-in-law namely, Kutniya was living at her matrimonial house at village Sikhipani. It has been alleged that Munika Kandulna had inherited some land from her mother for which there was a dispute with the accused appellant who happens to be the son of the elder sister of her mother-in-law. It has been alleged that on 04.08.2014, she along with her younger sister-in-law namely, Payari Kandulna were plucking paddy and at around 4:00 P.M. she heard a cry of alarm from her mother-in-law Munika Kandulna and she had seen the accused pushing the deceased on the road and assaulting her with a stone on her head. When the informant and her sister-in-law reached the place of occurrence they had seen blood oozing out from the head as well as from both the ears of the deceased. With the help of Payari Kandulna, Munika Kandulna was brought to her house and when her husband returned the incident was disclosed to him and though they were planning for getting the medical treatment of her mother-in-law but in the meantime she succumbed to her injuries. It has been alleged that on account of a land dispute the accused Abhiram Barla had committed the murder of the mother-in-law of the informant. Based on the aforesaid allegations T. Tanger P.S. Case No. 36/2014 was instituted against Abhiram Barla for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 144/2014. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 5. P.W.1 (Julian Kandulna) has stated that his mother Munika Kandulna was murdered by Abhiram Barla by assaulting her with a stone. He has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident he had gone to the field to graze cattle. His wife and his daughter-in-law had disclosed about the incident to him. -2- 6. P.W.2 (Payari Kandulna) has stated that the incident is of August, 2014 at around 4:00 P.M. at which point of time she was plucking paddy in the field and her sister-in-law Nimi Kandulna was also with her. She has stated that the accused Abhiram Barla had come and after pushing her mother-in-law Munika Kandulna had committed assault upon her with a stone which resulted in her suffering some injuries. She and her sister- in-law had brought Munika Kandulna to the house where she died. In cross-examination, she has stated that her house is at a distance of 30 feet from the place where she was plucking paddy. 7. P.W.3 (Nimi Kandulna) is the informant who has stated that at the time of the incident she was plucking paddy when she had seen her mother-in-law Munika Kandulna being pushed by Abhiram Barla and being subjected to assault with a stone on her head which resulted in her becoming injured. She was subsequently taken to her house where she died. She has identified her signature in the fardbeyan as well as the signature of Julian Kanduln which have been marked as Exhibit-2 and 2/1. In cross-examination, she has stated that Abhiram Barla is her brother in relation. She has also stated that the distance from the place where she was plucking paddy and the place of occurrence is 30 feet. When she reached the place of occurrence she had seen her mother-in-law lying on the ground. 8. (Turten Kandulna) has identified his P.W.4 signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. In cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of the incident he had gone to graze cattle and when he had returned in the evening his sister-in-law had disclosed about the incident to him. 9. P.W.5 (Dr. Kishore Kullu) was posted as a Medical -3- Officer at Sadar Hospital, Simdega and on 06.08.2014 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Munika Kandulna and had found the following injuries. Physical Examination:- Physique average built, nutrition good, decomposition absent, Rigor mortis present in all four limbs, both eyes partially opened, mouth closed. Postmortem finding:- of abdomen and back of chest. External Examination:- Staining bluish-black back Lacerated wound ½” x ½” x skin deep Lacerated wound 1-1/2” x 1”x scalp deep 1. over left side of skull area, 2. below right ear, 3. below left ear, 4. Bleeding from both sides of ears was present. Lacerated wound 1” x 1/2” x skin deep Internal Examination:- i. ii. On opening of skull cavity there was laceration of left side of cerebrum and meninges with fracture of left side of partial and occipital bone of skull with collection of blood over left cranial cavity was present. There was fracture of both side of mustroid bone and base of cranium, iii. All viscera’s of the body were found congested, iv. Urinary bladder was full with urine, v. Uterus small in size and non-gravid, vi. Stomach-empty, vii. Small intestine digested food and gases were present, viii. Large intestine-fecal matter and gases were present. Nature of Injury: Ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt object, time since death- within 24 to 36 hours of duration. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt object. The cause of death has been opined to be on account of head injury and shock leading to cardio respiratory -4- failure. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. 10. P.W.6 (Ravindra Kumar Singh) was posted as an Officer in-Charge of T. Tanger Police Station and on 05.08.2014 he had received information that in Tutunia Bhagatdih a person has been murdered. After making a Station Diary Entry he had proceeded for the place of occurrence along with other Police personnel and when he reached the house of Nimi Kandulna he had found the dead body of a female. He had prepared the inquest report and had sent the body for postmortem. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Nimi Kandulna and thereafter started investigation itself. In course of investigation, he had recorded the restatement of Nimi Kandulna and had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Tutunia Bhagatdih in the unmetalled road from Aambapani to Tutunia in the southern part where the accused is said to have pushed and committed assault upon the deceased. After inspection of the place of occurrence he had recorded the statement of Pyari Kandulna and thereafter on 07.08.2014 he had recorded the statement of Julian Kandulna, Turten Kandulna and Praful Kandulna. On 10.08.2014, the accused Abhiram Barla was arrested and his statement was recorded. On the basis of the supervision of his superior officers and after obtaining the postmortem report and on completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by him. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2/2. He has also proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-4. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. Nothing of substance has come out in his cross- examination. 11. P.W.7 (Praful Kandulna) is the grandson of the deceased Munika Kandulna who on the date of occurrence had -5- gone to Aambapani market and when he had returned he came to know that accused Abhiram Barla had committed the murder of Munika Kandulna by assaulting her with a stone. 12. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his complicity in the commission of the murder. 13. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Pankaj Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the conviction of the appellant is based upon the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3. It has been submitted that P.W.3 is the informant and though in the fardbeyan he has specifically stated about the presence of P.W.2 plucking paddy along with her but the said fact is conspicuously absent in her evidence as P.W.3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that it is an admitted fact that there was a land dispute between the deceased and the appellant. An alternative argument has been put forward by him to the effect that if the Court comes to a conclusion regarding the commission of assault by the appellant upon the deceased the same can be construed to be an offence u/s 304 Part-I of the IPC on account of the previous enmity as also on account of the fact that only a single blow was given on the head of the deceased which resulted in her death and which fact has been supported by the witnesses as well as corroborated by the autopsy report. 14. Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, learned Spl. P.P. for the State has submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence who have specifically alleged about the appellant committing assault upon the deceased with a stone on her head which finds support from the postmortem report and, in such circumstances, therefore, the learned trial court was correct in convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records. -6- 16. In the fardbeyan of the informant (P.W.3) mention has been made about P.W.2 being also present with her and both had witnessed the assault committed by the appellant upon Munika Kandulna with the stone which resulted in an injury suffered by her and when she was taken to her home she ultimately succumbed to her injuries. P.W.2 has categorically stated about having witnessed the occurrence and though learned counsel for the appellant has stated that P.W.3 has not mentioned about the presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence but her evidence clearly reveals about the presence of P.W.2 as both had taken the deceased to her house where she ultimately died. The defence has failed to demolish the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 and, therefore, it can be safely concluded that P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye-witnesses to the assault committed by the appellant. It also appears from the entire gamut of allegations and the evidence of the eye-witnesses that a single blow was given upon the deceased by the appellant and, this fact appears to have been corroborated by the postmortem report. Admittedly, there was previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant with respect to a land and this was the cause of assault even as per P.W.3. 17. The aforesaid facts have not been properly noticed by the learned trial court while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC. The scenario depicted above, therefore, leads us to conclude that the appellant can be held guilty only for the offence u/s 304 Part-II of the IPC. 18. Accordingly, we modify the conviction of the appellant from 302 of the IPC to one u/s 304 Part-II of the IPC and, consequently the sentence is also modified to 10 years R.I. 19. It appears that the appellant is in custody from 10.08.2014 and has already completed the modified sentence as imposed by us in this order. In such view of the matter, therefore, having completed the sentence imposed upon the appellant by us, -7- he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 20.
Decision
This appeal stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 14th day of August, 2024. A. Sanga/NAFR -8-