Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 604 (JHR)

Rudi Munda v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-05-11

DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.9.2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 549 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the learned 8th Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi held the appellant Rudi Munda guilty under Section 324 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI for three years. 2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Sukhlal Munda has gone to help his brother-in-law Sambhunath in harvesting the lac crop. It is further stated that on 2nd May, 1997 at 2 PM in the afternoon, when he was harvesting the lac, accused Rudi Munda, Bigan Munda Munda and Charku Munda arrived there armed variously and asked him not to harvest the lac. It is further stated that when Sambhunath asserted that it was his raiyati plot and he will harvest the lac, the accused used bow and arrow with intent to kill him. As alleged, the bow struck the informant on the left side of his chest, he raised alarm and when the villagers started coming, all the accused fled away. 3. This matter was reborted to Silli police same day in the evening at 4.15 PM, on the basis of which Silli P.S. Case No. 21/97 dated 2.5.1997 was registered under Section 324/307 IPC against three persons. The informant was sent for medical treatment and investigation started. The police submitted chargesheet against all the three accused persons under Section 307/34 IPC. The case was committed for trial by the court of sessions. The trial court framed charges against all the three persons on 18th December, 1997. The trial court after examining the witnesses found and held the appellant Rudi Munda guilty under Section 324 IPC only, while acquitting two other accused from the charges. 4. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that the learned lower court has committed a mistake of fact and law on records. It is further asserted that the evidence on records does not support the prosecution story that the appellant has used arrow to cause injury on the informant. It is further asserted that the nature of injury brought on record does not support the case that such injury, superficial and simple in nature, might have been caused if actually bow has struck the informant. It is further asserted that the nature of injury brought on record does not support the case that such injury, superficial and simple in nature, might have been caused if actually bow has struck the informant. It is further asserted that the harvesting of lac was disputed and the informant was a tutored witness. The memo of appeal further mentions that the on admission of the prosecution witness, serious doubts arose in the manner of occurrence as well possession of the lac tree between the parties. The memo of appeal further criticized the manner in which appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr. P.C. 5. All these points were stressed before me by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned APP opposed this contention on the ground that the injury found by the doctor on PW 4 was caused by sharp cutting and penetrating weapon, which supports the prosecution story. 6. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the materials available on record. The prosecution story is that Shambhunath has got right and title of the land in question. In this context PW 1 has asserted that this land was recorded in the name of his father. However during cross examination he admitted that this plot was recorded in the name of one Kartik Munda, his maternal grandfather. He has been cross examined at length regarding possession of Aklu Munda and the appellant Rudi Munda said to be the son of sister of Kartik. He has further admitted in para 4 that the appellant has field a case for the possession of the land, for which proceeding under Sections 107/145 Cr. P.C. was pending in the court. It creates a reasonable doubt regarding possession of tree and the land in question. It is further asserted in cross-examination, that he was not attacked with bow but his brother-in-law was attacked by the appellant. 7. In this context the statement of PW 4, Sukhlal Munda has been criticised. According to this witness, the accused persons objected on their harvesting of lac. It is further stated that when bow was thrown, he sat down and he was saved. He has further admitted in cross examination that the appellants father Budhu Munda was son of one Lakhimani and there was litigation between Sambhu and appellant for last 4-5 years regarding this land, in which he has gone there to help his brother-in-law. It is further stated that when bow was thrown, he sat down and he was saved. He has further admitted in cross examination that the appellants father Budhu Munda was son of one Lakhimani and there was litigation between Sambhu and appellant for last 4-5 years regarding this land, in which he has gone there to help his brother-in-law. He further admitted that Sambhu has disclosed that during harvesting of lac, there may be a chance of fight, on which he has gone to help him. The allegation that he was hit by bow is not supported by the medical evidence. According to PW 3, Dr. H.N. Choudhary, he examined Sukhlal on 2nd May, 1997 and found one sharp cut punctured wound lateral to stomachs left side. It further mentioned that the nature of injury as simple. He has admitted in cross examination that he did not mention the length and breadth of the injury, as the injury was superficial in nature. If an arrow actually hit the informant, the superficial injury is not possible, rather penetrating punctured wounds would have been caused. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further drew my attention towards admission of PW 2, Puni Kumharin, said to be an eye witness of the occurrence. She has admitted in examination in chief that appellant used to claim the land. She has further admitted that she has gone there as hired labour of Sambhu Munda and the tree was standing near the house of Sambhu Munda. She has admitted that for this land, litigation was continuing for last seven years and harvesting was being done with the help of two brother-in-law of Sambhu. According to her version, Sambhu used to get the lac harvested with the help of his relations. 9. PW 5 is the I.O. of the case. According to this witness, he has not seen the papers of the land in question. In this context the defence has examined one Polari Mahto, whose house is situated nearby. This witness has asserted that he never saw Sambhu Munda planting lac on the disputed land. 10. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned lower court has found that there was a dispute regarding the possession of the land, for which Cr. Misc. Case No. 882/96 has further been converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. 10. From perusal of the impugned judgment, I find that the learned lower court has found that there was a dispute regarding the possession of the land, for which Cr. Misc. Case No. 882/96 has further been converted into a proceeding under Section 145 Cr. P.C. but the learned lower court tried to find out who was aggressor. Accordingly, relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 4, he held appellant Rudi Munda guilty of causing injury with bow and arrows. The learned lower court held that the injury sustained by Sukhlal Munda, PW 4, was superficial in nature but believed the prosecution version. 11. On careful consideration of the fact on record, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs, 1 find and hold that the present occurrence took place during the scuffle for harvesting lac on the disputed plot. The defence is that they were harvesting the lac when the prosecution party objected but they have denied that any such assault was made causing injury on Sukhlal Munda, PW 4. The allegation of the prosecution that Sukhlal Munda was struck with bow and arrow is not supported by medical evidence on record. 12. In such view of the matter, I do not find material on record to affirm the findings of the learned lower court that the appellant has caused injury with bow and arrow on Sukhlal Munda in the manner as alleged and the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant in the present case. 13. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The order of conviction and sentence dated 28.9.2000 is set aside. The appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bond.