Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1041 (JHR)

Turam Sundi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-11-29

D.N.PATEL, SUSHIL HARKAULI

body2010
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 64 of 1996 by judgment dated 22.1.2000. 2. The sole accused (appellant) was put up for trial for offences under Sections 302/307/324 I.P.C. for having committing the murder of one Keshri Sundi and another Kaptan Sirka and injuring another person called Ramai Sundi. 3. The learned Sessions Judge found the accused-appellant guilty of the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and held him to be not guilty under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was consequently acquitted under Section 307 I.P.C. 4. The prosecution story is that the accused was brought by P.W.2 Mahati Das, who was the Dakua of the village, and three or four other villagers to the house of the informant where he was kept in tied up condition as it was reported that the accused had lost his mental balance and was chasing the villagers. This happened on the night of 9.12.1995. 5. The next morning on 10.12.1995 the accused Turam Sundi got himself released from the bonds and started fleeing away. The brother of the informant Sanatan Sundi i.e. Keshri Sundi, who was the Munda of the village and P.W.2 Mahati Das, who was the Dakua of the village alongwith three, four other villagers proceeded in search of the accused. While attempting to apprehend the accused. Keshri Sundi was assaulted by the accused with knife and stones, after which, the accused again ran away. Thereafter Ramai Sundi and Kaptan Sirka proceeded for apprehending the accused. On the second attempt of apprehension, the accused assaulted Ramai Sundi and also Kaptan Sirka with knife. By this time several villagers had gathered there and started shooting arrows at the accused. One arrow struck the accused in the abdomen but he fled away into the forest. 6. This is alleged to have happened at about noon time on 10.12.1995. 7. Upon receiving information of the offence, the Police Inspector proceeded to the place of occurrence where he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.-6) of Sanatan Sundl (P.W. 1) on 10.12.1995 at about 5.00 p.m. The Inspector recorded the statement of the informant, inspected the places of occurrence found both dead bodies of deceased Keshri Sundi and Kaptan Sirka, prepared the inquest (Exts.-8 and 8/1). He recorded the statements of witnesses, arrested the accused who was found. In injured condition, recorded the confessional statement of the accused, forwarded him to the hospital for treatment. The Inspector also forwarded Ramai Sundi to the same hospital for treatment. The Inspector collected blood stained earth from the place of assault of deceased Kaptan Sirka vide Ext.-7. He also collected blood stained earth and two blood stained stones from the place of assault of deceased Keshri Sundi vide Ext.-7/1. The investigation was subsequently transferred to another investigating officer and ultimately a charge-sheet was submitted under Sections 302/307/324 IPC against the solitary accused. 8. In the meanwhile, the accused upon discharge from hospital had remanded to the judicial custody on 20.12.1995. 9. The prosecution examined the informant Sanatan Sundi as P W. 1. Mahatl Das the Dakua of the village as P.W.2, Budhan Singh Sundi, the Sarpanch as P.W.3, Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta who conducted the post mortem on the body of the two deceased as P.W. 4, Dr. Jahawar Khan, who had examined the injured Ramai Sundi and also the accused as P.W.5. The Police Inspector Indu Pal Oraon was examined as P.W. 6, Sohan Singh Kumar as P.W.7 is not very material. Bir Singh Sundi as P.W.8 being an eye witness, and one Nilesh Kumar as P.W.9 who is also not very material. 10. The injured Ramai Sundi has not been produced as witness although P.W. 5 Dr. Jawahar Khan has testified about the injuries he found on having medically examined on Ramai Sundi. The trial court has observed that the non-production of Ramai Sundi was sought to be explained during arguments by saying that his attendance could not be secured: however, apparently because of the said non-production of Ramal Sundi, the trial court has acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 307 I.P.C. While recording such acquittal, the trial court does not give any cogent reason for doubting the injuries as reported by Dr. Jawahar Khan (P.W.5) and also for disbelieving P.W. 8 Sir Singh Sundi, who was an eye witness of the assault on Ramai Sundi. However, because there is no appeal or revision against the acquittal, it is not necessary to go into that question further. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. 12. Jawahar Khan (P.W.5) and also for disbelieving P.W. 8 Sir Singh Sundi, who was an eye witness of the assault on Ramai Sundi. However, because there is no appeal or revision against the acquittal, it is not necessary to go into that question further. 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length. 12. The first argument in defence of the appellant is based upon the prosecution witnesses regarding unsoundness of mind of the accused. 13. Firstly, unsoundness of mind is a defence under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code only where it is of a nature and extent because of which at the time of committing the offence, the accused is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or knowing that the accused is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. There is no such defence taken by way of cross-examination or suggestion to any witness or by way of defence evidence or during arguments before the trial court. Moreover, the answers given by the accused to the questions put to him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. seem to be reasonably intelligent and therefore, there is no material on the basis of which it may be inferred that at the time of commission of the offence, the accused was of unsound mind to such an extent that by reason of such unsoundness, he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or knowing that he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law. Therefore, the case cannot be said to be covered under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. The defence of the accused before the trial court and also in this appeal was of complete denial of the incident. 15. However, it has not been shown either before the trial court or before us as to why the eye witness including the informant would have any possible motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. 16. The nature of incident, the number of injuries and the number of victims also rule out any theory of private defence attempted to be argued on the side of the appellant. 16. The nature of incident, the number of injuries and the number of victims also rule out any theory of private defence attempted to be argued on the side of the appellant. The injury on the body of the accused, namely, a single arrow found embedded in the abdomen of the accused by P.W.5 is also explained by the prosecution, and the explanation is quite natural, namely, that when three persons were injured seriously with knife and stones by the accused during attempts to apprehend the accused, the other villagers, who got gathered there, started shooting arrows at the accused, one of which struck the accused in his abdomen, where upon he ran away into the forest. 17. We have gone through the statements at the witnesses and we do not find anything in their examination-in-chief or their cross-examination, which would cast any serious doubt upon the testimony of these witnesses. The trial court has given detailed reasons for the conviction and sentence. We do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere either with the conviction or with the sentence. 18. The appeal is consequently dismissed.