Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1118 (JHR)

Boka Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2006-08-25

AMARESHWAR SAHAY

body2006
JUDGMENT Amareshwar Sahay, J.- The sale appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10(ten) years, by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.2.2004 and 23.2.2004 respectively, passed by the learned Addl. Session Judge, Fast Track Court, Sahebganj, in Sessions Case No. 249 of 2002. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 1.1.2001 at about 4.00 P.M., the informant, Marangkuri Soren (P.W. 4) verbally informed the S.I., Ashif Beg of Borio Police Station that a week ago on last Tuesday a Panchaity was held with regard to theft of paddy of Boka Marandi and in the said Panchaity, a fine of Rs.1,400/-(one thousand & four hundred) was imposed on her husband. Her husband Tilkai Marandi paid the fine to Boka Marandi. On the last Wednesday, when the informant had brought her husband to Banjhi for his treatment, at that time, the accused, Boka Marandi saw the informant and her husband near the shop of Bhaga (P.W.-3). Seeing them, the accused, Boka Marandi came there, assauited the informant by means of Sandie and her husband Tilkai Marandi was assaulted by means of fists and leg mercilessly by throwing him on the ground, due to which her husband became unconscious and also feel ill because of the said occurrence. The informant could not gat-him treated due to her poverty and thereafter ultimately, he died on 31st December, 2000. Thereafter, the first information report was lodged on 1 st of January, 2001. The Police after investigation submitted the charge-sheet and the appellant was put on trial. 3. In order to establish the charges, altogether five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1, Bhagwat Marandi is the Doctor, who held the post mortem examination of the deceased, Tilkai Marandi. In his statement, the Doctor stated that on opening the skull bone of the deceased, he found subdurale haernatoma on his brain and this was due to the injury caused by hard and blunt substance such as 'Mukka' or Heel. This witness proved post mortem report to be Ext. 1. P.W. 2, Md. Kalimuddin Ansari is a formal witness. P.W. 3, Bhagawat Pd. This witness proved post mortem report to be Ext. 1. P.W. 2, Md. Kalimuddin Ansari is a formal witness. P.W. 3, Bhagawat Pd. Jaiswai is the owner of the shop and in front of which, the alleged occurrence took place and he corroborated the statement of the informant, Marangkuri Soren (P.W. 4). P.W. 4, Marangkuri Soren is the informant herself, who has categorically supported her statement made in the Fardbeyan and she narrated the entire occurrence before the Police, as to how her husband was assaulted by the appellant. P.W. 5, Awadhesh Kumar is the Investigating Officer. 4. On behalf of the defence, three witnesses were also examined. 5. On perusal of the statement of the informant, P.W. 4, Marangkuri Soren as also another eyewitness, P.W. 3, Shopkeeper, Bhagawat Pd. Jaiswal, I find from the statement of both the witnesses that this fact has been established that it was the appellant, who assaulted the deceased by means of fists and leg by throwing him on the ground and in that course the deceased received some injuries on his head, which was the ultimate cause of the death of the deceased. 6. In view of the above discussions and findings, I hold that the learned trial court has rightly found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant is hereby affirmed. 7. So far as question of .the sentence is concerned, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no intention of the appellant to commit murder of the deceased nor did he assaulted him with such intention. Learned counsel for the appellant accordingly, further submitted that the sentence of ten (10) years awarded to him is harsh and excessive. It is further submitted that during the trial the appellant has already remained in jail custody for about six (6) months and thereafter, after the judgment till the bail was granted by this Court, he has remained in custody for more than two (2) months and, therefore, he has already remained in jail custody for more than eight (8) months. 8. As a matter of fact, from the evidence of the prosecution itself, it appears that the appellant did assault the deceased by means of the fists and leg only. 9. 8. As a matter of fact, from the evidence of the prosecution itself, it appears that the appellant did assault the deceased by means of the fists and leg only. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also submission made on behalf of the appellant, I hold that the sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court is harsh. Since he has already been remained in custody for more than eight (8) months and as such the ends of justice would be met, if the sentence and imprisonment is reduced to be period is already undergone by him and he may be also directed to pay fine. 10. In the result, conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. He is further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- (two thousand) in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, if the fine is deposited by the appellant, the same shall be paid to the informant. 11. With this modification reduction in sentence, this appeal is dismissed.