Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1348 (JHR)

Sukram Singh Munda v. State of Bihar

2006-11-22

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, D.P.SINGH

body2006
Judgment By Court.-This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.6.98 passed by the 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti (Ranchi) in Sessions Trial No. 1491 97, whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge held the appellants guilty under Sections 149/302 IPC and sentenced them to serve RI for life. 2. Factual matrix leading to this appeal are as follows:- In the evening of 23rd October, 96 the informant alongwith PW 3 was tending their cattle outside Marang Guru forest situated within the Khunti P.S. when PW 2 Shambhu Mahto arrived raising alarm that five persons including the four appellants were assaulting the deceased Gambhir Mahto because he has objected the cutting of forest by the appellants. The informant further stated that he alongwith PW 2 Shambhu Mahto ran towards the PO and saw all the appellants assaulting the deceased. The informant thereafter ran towards the village and when he returned with the villagers he found his brother lying dead in the field. He named all the appellants including one Mohan Singh to have assaulted the deceased with Tangi and Balua. Khunti police was informed, which arrived at the PO on 24.10.96, recorded the fardbeyan of the informant, prepared inquest report and started investigation. The police finally submitted charge-sheet against five persons under Section 302/149 IPC. All the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions and the trial court after framing charges, examining witnesses found and held the appellants guilty under Sections 302/149 IPC and convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. 3. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned trial court has not considered the contradictions and improbability in the prosecution case. It is further asserted that the prosecution version that entire assault was seen by PWs 1, 2 and 3 stand contradicted by their own statements on record. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Kashyap pointed out that the presence of eye witnesses is ruled out because of the fact that the dead body was recovered from a field whereas the forest was situated at distance from the field. It is also asserted that the question of dispute over cutting out the forest trees does not arise as appellant Sukram Singh Munda has got his own forest. According to Mr. It is also asserted that the question of dispute over cutting out the forest trees does not arise as appellant Sukram Singh Munda has got his own forest. According to Mr. Kashyap when the place of occurrence is situated at a distance of 1.5 kilometers from the village, the probability of villagers reaching at the PO within a short time is not possible. It is also submitted that the deceased and PW 2 has attempted to outrage the modesty of the mother of appellant Rajan Singh Munda on which this incident took place. The learned counsel further pointed out that even if the prosecution story is believed, the offence under Section 302 IPC could not be made out. Therefore, the appellants, who have already remained in custody for last ten years, deserve to be acquitted of the charges. 4. We have anxiously considered the submissions alongwith evidence available on record. The prosecution in the present case has examined 15 witnesses, out of which PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 are hearsay witnesses, who arrived at the PO after halla and saw the dead body of Gambhir Mahto. PWs 7, 8, 11, 12 and 13 have been tendered by the prosecution. PW 15 is Dr. R.S. Sahu, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body and proved the post mortem report as Ext. 6. The post mortem report mentions of a number of incised wounds in left portion of body, left cheek, left clavicle, left shoulder caused by sharp cutting weapon. The dead body further got three injuries on different portion of the body caused with hard and blunt substance. According to post mortem report, death was caused because of above incised injuries. 5. PW 14 is the IO Dinanath Mahto, who arrived at the PO on 24.10.96 and recorded the fardbeyan of PW 1. According to this witness, the PO was situated at a distance of 1.5 Kilometers from the village in a paddy field of Munshi Lohra. He recorded the statements of other witnesses on the PO. This witness further admitted vide para 9 that Marangburu forest was situated at half kilometers south from the village. Therefore, it is apparent that the dead body was recovered from a paddy field outside the forest. In this context the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are required to be scrutinized. 6. This witness further admitted vide para 9 that Marangburu forest was situated at half kilometers south from the village. Therefore, it is apparent that the dead body was recovered from a paddy field outside the forest. In this context the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 are required to be scrutinized. 6. The informant has asserted that the incident took place because of dispute and objection raised by the deceased on cutting of green trees by the appellants. According to him he was tending his cattle nearby alongwith PW 3 when Shambhu Singh Munda, PW 2 arrived there raising alarm that appellants were killing the deceased. He further asserted that he ran towards the place of occurrence but did not resist because the appellants were armed. Then he ran towards the village and brought others to find that the appellants have left the place and his brother was lying dead. This witness has admitted in cross-examination that the forest was situated in Hesnadih village. He has admitted that he cannot say which of the appellants assaulted the deceased on which part of the body. He denied the defence suggestion that deceased was trying to outrage the modesty of the motl1er of appellant Rajan. PW 2 asserted that when appellants were cutting trees, the deceased objected, after which he was assaulted by all of them. He further asserted that he informed PWs 1 and 3 and other villagers. This witness has admitted during cross-examination that till PW 1 arrived at the PO, appellants were assaulting the deceased. He ran away as soon as the assault started. This witness has admitted that appellant Sukram has got his own forest near Marangburu forest. According to him, on that day 17 persons were on duty to protect the forest but none of them arrived at the PO on his alarm. He simply mentioned that appellant Sukram was assaulting the deceased from behind and others from all sides. PW 3, Bhajhari Mahto, another witness of the occurrence, was also tending his cattle near the PO. He claimed to have seen the occurrence right from beginning as he reached at the PO on alarm raised by the deceased and PW 2. However, he in the same breath admitted that when he reached at the PO, he found the deceased lying dead. He claimed to have seen the occurrence right from beginning as he reached at the PO on alarm raised by the deceased and PW 2. However, he in the same breath admitted that when he reached at the PO, he found the deceased lying dead. This witness has admitted during cross-examination that PO was situated on half kilometer, from where he saw it and PW 1 was tending cattle at a distance of 1 kilometer. He further admitted that villagers arrived there after he reached at the PO. According to this witness, PW 2 was standing there but he was not assaulted by the appellants. 7. On careful scrutiny of evidence of these witnesses, it is apparent that the deceased was found dead in the paddy field of one Munshi Lohra. It further appears that alleged objection raised by the deceased was regarding cutting of trees of forest tree, whereas the PO is paddy field of Munshi Lohra. The dead body bore incised wounds on the left side of body. The eye witnesses PWs 1, 2 and 3 have asserted that Rajan Singh Munda has actively participated in the assault alongwith Shashi Singh Munda and Radheshyam Singh Munda, who were carrying tangi. The suggested false implication that deceased was trying to outrage the modesty of the mother of appellant Rajan Singh Munda provides another angle of the occurrence. Even if it is believed, the assault on the deceased is not disputed. The allegation against Sukram Singh Munda, who was admittedly at the time of occurrence nearly 70 year of age, appears to be exaggeration. The defence has not been able to bring on record any motive of false implication, rather the suggested attempt of outrage of the modesty of the mother of appellant Rajan Singh Munda provides definite picture that the deceased died due to assault made by appellants excluding appellant Sukram Singh Munda. The prosecution witnesses are apparently truthful because they have admitted that they came and saw the dead body on the alarm raised by PWs 1 and 2 and they were informed, who have assaulted the deceased. PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 are found probable and truthful. They supported the eye witnesses of the occurrence. We have gone through the impugned judgment, which has discussed all these facts, vide paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment. 8. PWs 4, 5, 6 and 10 are found probable and truthful. They supported the eye witnesses of the occurrence. We have gone through the impugned judgment, which has discussed all these facts, vide paras 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment. 8. Having considered the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the prosecution in the present case has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubts that the appellant Rajan Singh Munda, Radheshyam Singh Munda and Shashi Singh Munda have participated in the alleged killing of deceased Gambhir Mahto. However, it has also come on record that the killing was not premeditated and committed after forming unlawful assembly. Therefore, their conviction under Sections 302/149 IPC cannot be maintained. Accordingly, their conviction is converted into under Sections 304(ll)/34 IPC and they are sentenced to undergo RI for ten years each. So far as the conviction of appellant Sukram Singh Munda, aged above 70 years, is concerned, we allow him the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charges mentioned above. Accordingly, the conviction of appellant Sukram Singh Munda is set aside. Since appellant Sukram Singh Munda is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds. 9. This appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observations, direction and modification.