Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1439 (JHR)

Joto Munda v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2008-12-12

AJIT KUMAR SINHA, R.K.MERATHIA

body2008
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.3.1993, passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 210 of 1990, convicting the appellants under Section 302 IPC and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. A Fardbeyan was lodged on 4.4.1984 at 10 A.M. by the informant-P.W-1-Rore Munda to the following effect. His mother Chaity Mundain went to market on the previous day. As she did not return by 8 P.M., he went to search her. When he came out of the village, he met the appellants. Appellant no. 1-Jota Munda told him that the appellants had killed and threw her dead body in Kunjali Forest. When the informant asked as to why they did so, the appellants threatened and chased him. Due to fear, the informant went back to his home. In the morning, he told about the said incident to the Chowkidar, who along with others including P.W-4 went to the house of the appellants, who confessed their guilt and said that there was quarrel with her, and as both were intoxicated, they committed this mistake. The appellants then went and pointed out to the dead body of the deceased in the jungle, and they were caught by the villagers. 3. Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Section 302 IPC against the appellants. The charge was read over to them, to which they denied and claimed to be tried. 4. P.W-1-the informant has fully supported the case disclosed by him in the fardbeyan. P.W-2, the Chowkidar also corroborated the evidence of P.W-1 and the statements made in the Fardbeyan. P.W-3 is a seizure list witness regarding seizure of blood stained soil and the weapon of assault. P.W-4 and 7 are tendered witnesses. P.W.-5 is a formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan and the FIR. P.W-6 is the brother of the informant, who was hearsay witness. P.W-8-Doctor-Arun Kumar has proved the postmortem report. From the postmortem report, it appears that the head and neck of the deceased were separated by heavy sharp object. 5. Mr. P.W-4 and 7 are tendered witnesses. P.W.-5 is a formal witness who has proved the fardbeyan and the FIR. P.W-6 is the brother of the informant, who was hearsay witness. P.W-8-Doctor-Arun Kumar has proved the postmortem report. From the postmortem report, it appears that the head and neck of the deceased were separated by heavy sharp object. 5. Mr. R.P. Gupta, appearing for the appellants, submitted that there is no eye witness; that the alleged extra judicial confession should not be relied; that the doctor has not been examined; that the Investigating Officer ( I.O.) has also not been examined; and that seized blood stained soil and the weapon of assault were not produced in court. 6. Counsel for the State submitted that the prosecution has fully proved it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts. 7. From the materials brought on the record, it is clear that the prosecution has proved that the appellants killed the mother of the informant by cutting her neck and threw her dead body in the jungle and her dead body was recovered by the Chowkidar and the villagers on the confessional statement of the appellants. 8. Under Exception-1 to Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation. In such cases it will fall under section 304 Part-I and not under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts of the case as stated by the prosecution, itself proves beyond doubt that it was not a case of murder committed with premeditation instead it was due to a sudden quarrel which took place between the deceased and the appellant and thus it will fall under Exception-I to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and will at best be a culpable homicide not amounting to murder since it was committed without premeditation due to sudden quarrel and provocation. 9. In the circumstances, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted under Section 304 part I IPC. 9. In the circumstances, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is converted under Section 304 part I IPC. On the question of sentence, it is to be noted that the appellants are full brothers; this case relates to an incident which took place about 24 years back; and the appellant was granted bail in this appeal in the year 1993 i.e. after about remaining in jail for about 9 years. We think that the interest of justice will be served by sentencing the appellants for the period already undergone. 10. With this modification in the conviction and sentence, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellants are discharged from their bail bonds.