Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 388 (JHR)

Krishna Samad v. State of Jharkhand

2006-04-18

D.P.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT : By Court.- The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 18th September, 2000 passed by Shri Ram Sagar Prasad Singh, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, Singhbhum West in S.T. No. 126 of 1997 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 304(2)/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. 2. Brief facts leading to their conviction are that Most Assi Samad wife of deceased Kari @ Rai Singh Samad of village Kanke, P.S. Tokla, Distra West Singhbhum stated before the Officer In' charge of Tokla Police Station at about 2.00 a.m. on 5th October, 1996 that last night dispute arose between her husband and appellant Narayan Samad for eating, who was agnate of the deceased. She further submitted that at about 11 p.m. on 4th October, 96, all the appellants came armed with Lathi and assaulted her husband on which she raised alarm but the appellants fled after causing grievous injury to her husband. 3. On the basis of this statement, Chakradharpur (Tokla) P.S. Case No. 133 of 1996 was registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The -appellants were charged accordingly and tried by the lower court. The trial court has found them guilty under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve R.I. for 10 years under Section 304/ 34 of the I.P.C. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that trial court has erred in holding them guilty of the offence without any corroborative evidence. The learned counsel for the appellants Mrs. Jaya Roy stressed upon the following points that the eye witnesses have admitted that they came after the assault and saw the deceased fallen on the ground. It was also stressed that the medical evidence does not support the ocular evidence because of the fact that the medical officer has opined that grievous injury was caused by penetrating weapon whereas the witnesses have said that the deceased was assaulted with Lathi. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellants have already remained in custody for more than seven years. 5. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that for minor altercation the husband of the informant was mercilessly beaten with Lathi by all three appellants causing his death on the spot. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the appellants have already remained in custody for more than seven years. 5. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that for minor altercation the husband of the informant was mercilessly beaten with Lathi by all three appellants causing his death on the spot. 6. I have carefully gone through the materials on record and evidences available on records. The informant who is also relative with the appellants has stated clearly that due to dispute over eating in the night of 4th October, 1996, all the appellants, named above, agnate of the deceased, came armed with Lathi and assaulted the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 4, Ketan Gope, gave the details about genesis of the occurrence in which the appellants objected why the deceased was taking food with his wife and his brother in law. P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 daughter of the deceased and wife of the deceased has supported the prosecution case fully. It has also come on record that two of the appellants Narayan Samad and Tuilu Samad were caught hold by witnesses P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 just after the occurrence. Other witnesses have also supported the prosecution story frankly. 7. The medical officer, P.W.-8 has supported prosecution version by finding fracture of skull and death caused by haemorrhage, shock etc. I do not find any material contradiction in the medical evidence and ocular evidence. P.W. 1, the I.O. of this case has proved the Fardbeyan, FIR and the seizure list prepared by him. On perusal of the evidence available on the record, I find that the lower court has rightly found and held the appellants guilty for the offences under Section 304/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In result I do not find any merit in the appeal. 8. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that all the appellants have remained in custody nerely two years during trial and after their conviction they have not been admitted to bail by this Court, therefore they have already remained in custody for more than seven years. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the assault did not take place after preparation etc. lenient view may be taken. In such facts where the assault took place just on dispute regarding taking food etc. It is further submitted that in view of the fact that the assault did not take place after preparation etc. lenient view may be taken. In such facts where the assault took place just on dispute regarding taking food etc. and the appellants have already served sentence of more than seven years, I find that the ends of justice may be served with modification of sentence for the period already undergone. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with modification of sentence of 10 years to the period already undergone by the appellants herein. The appellants be released henceforth, if not required in any other case.