Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 570 (JHR)

TANTI MURMU v. STATE OF BIHAR

2003-05-05

D.N.PRASAD

body2003
Judgment : D. N. PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19-12-1990 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years in connection with Sessions Case No. 122 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 17-8-1989 at about 8 a. m. the Informant Jitan Murmu was sitting on the Verandah of his house. In the meanwhile, his brother Tanti Murmu (Appellant) came there, having Gupti in his hand and he gave a Gupti blow on the informant hiting him on his forehead above the left eye, as a result of which the Informant became unconscious. It is further alleged that the wife of the Informant came there and started raising Halla. Thereafter the villagers also rushed to the spot. ( 3 ) THE informant, thereafter, lodged FIR, Police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under S. 307/324 IPC. The appellant appeared before the Sessions Judge, whereupon charge was framed under S. 307 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty. ( 4 ) SIX witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution of whom Babulal Murmu (PW-3) has been tendered. PW-1, the informant claimed to had sustained injury by Gupti from the hands of the appellant. But it may be noted here that the doctor who examined him did not find the injury caused by Gupti rather a single injury caused by hard and blunt substance was found. PW-4 is the wife of the informant, who came at the spot on raising Halla and thereafter the informant was brought to the police station for lodging FIR. PW-5, the Investigating Officer, admittedly could not find anything otherwise at the place of occurrence. He did not find any blood stained earth. PW-6 is the Medical Officer, who said to have examined the victim/informant and found a lacerated wound 2" x 1/2" x bone deep over the left frontal bone of the informant above the left eye and the injury was simple caused by hard blunt substance. The Injury report is Ext. 3. ( 5 ) THUS, it is apparent that the allegation as made out has not been substantiated by the medical evidence. The Injury report is Ext. 3. ( 5 ) THUS, it is apparent that the allegation as made out has not been substantiated by the medical evidence. It is admitted position that there is no eye witness of the occurrence and no blood stained earth was found at the place of occurrence nor any villager came forward to support the prosecution case in any manner. In absence of independent corroboration and for vital contradiction in oral and medical evidence, it will highly be unsafe to convict the appellant. When there is suspicion, the benefit will go in favour of the accused/appellant. Moreover, S. 307 IPC is not attracted, as intention to kill is wanting. Had there been such intention, he would have given repeated blow. ( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there is much contradiction in the oral as well as the medical evidence and the appellant has been dragged only because of enmity and except the wife of the informant, none has supported the prosecution case and the genesis of the case was also unsatisfactory. ( 7 ) ). The contention of the counsel has got the substance, in view of the fact that there is a vital contradiction in the evidence of informant and the medical evidence itself. There is also no repetition of blow and the injury said to be superficial and simple in nature. In this way, the ingredients for attracting the offence under S. 307 IPC has also not been made out. Thus, it is evident that the learned Sessions Judge committed error in convicting the appellant for the offence under S. 307 IPC, which is liable to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, I find merit in this appeal, which is allowed. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19-12-1990 is, hereby, set aside. The appellant is already on bail and hence he is discharged from the liability of the bail bonds. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .