Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 817 (PAT)

Gonda Munda v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2002-07-30

LAKSHMAN URAON, VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD

body2002
Judgment Lakshman Uraon, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.5.1996 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No. 137/90 convicting the sole appellant Gonda Munda under Section 302, IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. The learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-convicted the other six accused-persons for the offence punishable under Section 323, read with Section 149, IPC and sentenced them to go imprisonment of sentence already undergone. 2. The informant-Sukari Mun- dain (PW 2) has stated in the FIR that in the evening at about 7 p.m. on 28.3.1988 there was a dance on the occasion of Sarhul at her house. In the dancing party Chand Kumari, Angi Mundain, PW 5, Sarin Kumari and Sunny Kumari had also participated. Her father-Sagar Munda and uncle Soma Munda (PW 4) had gone to participate in the Sarhul dancing festival to another village Saridkale. The informant and her maternal grandfather- Chanda Munda were alone at home. In the meantime the appellant-Gonda Munda having tangi in his hand, Sonika Munda, Bhagrai Munda, Gusu Munda, Mochi Rai Munda, Jagai Munda and Karam Singh Munda, all having lathi in their hands, were searching Sagar Munda and Soma Munda, father and uncle of the informant, to kill them as there was land dispute, pending in between them. The grand- father-Chanda Munda tried to pacify them but the appellant-Gonda Munda, gave a tangi blow on his head. On being injured Chanda Munda fell down then the other co-accused assaulted him with danda resulting the death of Chanda Munda at the spot. To save Chanda Munda, nearby dancing girls, Chandmani Kumari, Gangi Kumari and the informant tried to rescue but they were also assaulted with lathies. Her uncle-Soma Munda while returning home from another village, was also assaulted on his way by the accused persons. 3. Ext. 6 is the inquest report of the deceased Chanda Munda. Ext. 5 is the seizure list of blood stained soil and Ext. 3 series are the injury reports of the injured Chandu Nag, Gangi Nag, Soma Munda and Sukar Nag. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem report of the deceased Chanda Munda. 4. PW 1 Etwari Mundain was dancing at about 7 p.m. on the occasion of Sarhul along with Chandu and Angi. The informant, Sukaru Mundain had gone to her home from the Akhara which is adjacent to her home. Ext. 1 is the post-mortem report of the deceased Chanda Munda. 4. PW 1 Etwari Mundain was dancing at about 7 p.m. on the occasion of Sarhul along with Chandu and Angi. The informant, Sukaru Mundain had gone to her home from the Akhara which is adjacent to her home. She and the other eye witness Angi Mundain, had deposed that all the accused including Gonda, who was armed with tangi and others were armed with lathi, went there with an intention to cause murder of the father and uncle of the informant. They also threatened to cut the females also. The appellant-Gonda Munda gave a tangi blow on the head of Chanda Munda and the others assaulted with danda to him. Chanda Munda died, at the spot. When PW 1 (Etwari Mundain) PW 5 (Angi Mundain) and Chandu went to save him, they were also assaulted. The informant-Sukaru Mundain was also assaulted who sustained injury and the injury report, Ext. 3 series, corroborate that they were present at the spot and saw the alleged assault on the head of Chanda Munda with tangi by Gonda Munda. They were also assaulted while they tried to save Chanda Munda. The alleged occurrence took place only due to land dispute. The oral evidence of the eye witnesses has been supported by the post-mortem report,. prepared by Dr. S.K. Sinha, Ext. 1. As the Doctor had since died hence the post-mortem report prepared by him under his pen and signature was proved by Dr. S.N. Prasad, PW 4. PW 8 (Banwari Lal Jaiswal), a formal witness, had stated that Dr. S.K. Sinha died who had prepared the post-mortem report and the injury report. Injury reports are Ext. 3 series. 5. The learned counsel for the sole appellant has argued that there is contradiction in the evidence of eye witnesses No. 1, 2 and 5. Their evidence is not supported by the medial report and also by the evidence of PW 4 (Soma Munda), who also sustained injuries. The evidence of PW 1 (Etwari Mundain), is that the informant- Sukari Mundain. PW 2 was not present at the place of dancing rather she was inside the house whereas PW 5, Angi Mundain, had stated that Sukari Mundain, the informant, was dancing with them in the Akhara. The post-mortem report (Ext. The evidence of PW 1 (Etwari Mundain), is that the informant- Sukari Mundain. PW 2 was not present at the place of dancing rather she was inside the house whereas PW 5, Angi Mundain, had stated that Sukari Mundain, the informant, was dancing with them in the Akhara. The post-mortem report (Ext. 1) of the deceased Chanda Munda, shows that he sustained two sharp cutting injuries and two bruises whereas eye witnesses, PWs 1, 2 and 5, have stated that the appellant-Gonda Munda, assaulted only once with tangi whereas the others assaulted with lathies. It was also submitted that the Doctor, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Chanda Munda and prepared post-mortem report, Ext. 1 had not been examined hence the post-mortem report cannot be looked into to hold the appellant guilty under Section 302, IPC. Moreover, the I.O. of this case has also not been examined which has greatly prejudiced the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was an old man who might have fallen down from the machan and sustained sharp cutting injury while fallen down on a sharp edged substance and also sustained bruises on his body. 7. The learned APP has argued that in this present case the P.O. is not in dispute. The I.O. seized the blood stained soil, prepared the seizure list, obtained signature of the witnesses, also prepared the inquest report and obtained signature of the witnesses. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was done but the Doctor who conducted the postmortem examination is now dead. Hence the report prepared by him cannot be disbelieved only because the Doctor could not be examined and he could not be cross-examined resulting prejudice to the appellant. 8. In this present case there is direct allegation against the sole appellant-Gonda Munda, who had tangi in his hand. The intention of Gonda Munda and others was to kill Sagar Munda, father of the informant and Soma Munda, uncle of the informant. They were lucky enough as they had gone to dance in another village on the occasion of Sarhul when the deceased tried to console the appellant and others who were searching Sagar and Soma Munda to kill and threatening to cut the girls of the house also. They were lucky enough as they had gone to dance in another village on the occasion of Sarhul when the deceased tried to console the appellant and others who were searching Sagar and Soma Munda to kill and threatening to cut the girls of the house also. Then the allegation against the sole appellant is that he gave a tangi blow on the head of the deceased-chanda Munda. When he fell down then all the remaining accused assaulted him with lathies including the sole appellant who had tangi This might have resulted two sharp cut injuries on the head, caused by tangi and bruised injury on the other part of the body. In view of this fact it is quite evident that the P.O. is quite established. Chanda Munda died, is not in dispute and the evidence is intact against the sole appellant-Gonda Munda that he gave tangi blow on the head of the deceased-Chanda Munda, who simply tried to pacify the appellant and others. The unfortunate old man who had gone to the village as guest on the occasion of Sarhul, was done to death due to tangi assault given by this sole appellant. 9. In view of this fact, I find that it is a well proved case against this appellant. Hence I do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The conviction and judgment passed by the learned Court below is hereby confirmed. Vikramaditya Prasad, J. 10 I agree.