Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 162 (JHR)

Bana Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-03

PRASHANT KUMAR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2009
JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.3.1995 and 31.3.1995, respectively, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, Ranchi, in Sessions Trial No. 282 of 1993 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 17.10.1992 at about 5-15 PM, the informant and his other friends were sitting on the ridge of a field after playing hockey match, Tempo Pahan ( deceased) was standing nearby. In the meantime, the appellant armed with axe arrived there and gave a sudden blow of axe on the right side of the neck of Tempo Pahan, who sustained injuries and fell down. The informant and others, out of fear, fled away and informed the Chowkidar of the village. When they returned to the place of occurrence, they saw that Tempo Pahan was lying dead and the appellant was standing there with the same axe in his hand. Seeing the informant and Chowkidar, the appellant started waiving the axe. When they tried to catch hold of the appellant, the appellant threw the axe towards them. Ultimately, the appellant was caught. 3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted; cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. Five witnesses were examined. P.W-1 was the seizure list witness. He identified the signature over the seizure list,Ext-1. P.W-2 is the doctor, who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased ( postmortem report is Ext-2). P.W-3 is the Chowkidar, who along with the informant had gone to the place of occurrence and had caught the appellant at the spot and handed over him to the police along with axe. P.W-4 is the informant. P.W-5 is the son of the Chowkidar, who has been tendered. P.W-4, who is the eye witness, has supported the prosecution case. Nothing was taken from him in the cross examination by the appellant in his favour. P.W-3, the Chowkidar, has also corroborated the statement of other P.Ws. The doctor, P.W-2 found incised injuries by sharp cutting weapon, such as ‘Tangi’, which were sufficient to cause death. 5. Mr. P.W-4, who is the eye witness, has supported the prosecution case. Nothing was taken from him in the cross examination by the appellant in his favour. P.W-3, the Chowkidar, has also corroborated the statement of other P.Ws. The doctor, P.W-2 found incised injuries by sharp cutting weapon, such as ‘Tangi’, which were sufficient to cause death. 5. Mr. Vijyendra Verma, learned amicus curiae, appearing for the appellant submitted that the conduct of the appellant shows that he was of unsound mind. Even after killing the deceased, he remained at the place of occurrence for a long time along with axe and did not flee away from the place of occurrence. 6. From the materials brought on the record by the prosecution, it is clear that the appellant killed the deceased. He came armed with axe and gave fatal blow on the neck of the deceased by axe. Nothing has been brought on record to show that the appellant was of unsound mind. Only on the basis of the said conduct, it is not possible to hold that he was of unsound mind, at the relevant time, when he committed the crime. It is also settled position that motive is not material in case of direct evidence. The trial court has taken into consideration the materials on the record and has reached to correct findings. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 7. It appears that the appellant has been released from jail by the State Government after remaining in jail for more than 14 years. 8. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.