Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 157 (JHR)

Arun Manjhi v. State of Jharkhand

2010-01-29

PRADEEP KUMAR

body2010
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 8.10.2001 passed by Shri Dhananjay Prasad Singh, learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial Case No. 34 of 2000, by which judgment, he found the sole appellant, Arun Manjhi guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that it will appear from the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses that there was a fight with regard to the grazing of the goat of the deceased in the field of the accused and during fight suddenly it is stated that the accused has given a single Lathi blow causing some injury on the head due to which subsequently he (the deceased) died in Dumka Hospital. It will appear from the evidences that the appellant has no intention to cause the death of the deceased and actually after some treatment, the deceased had come back to home and due to the lack of proper treatment, suddenly he again became serious, and subsequently, taken to Dumka Hospital where he died. In that view of the matter, his conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper and it will come under Section 304 (part-II) of the Indian Penal Code, for which, he has sufficiently been punished and remained in jail. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that after full consideration, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and it requires no alteration by this Court. 5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that after full consideration, the learned Sessions Judge rightly convicted the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and it requires no alteration by this Court. 5. After hearing both the parties and after going through the evidences on record, I find that this instant case was started on the basis of a written report given by the deceased, Goutam Manjhi stating therein that he was working as a 'Home Guard' at Dumka Police Centre and had came to his field on 1.9.1999 at about 1.30 P.M., Arun Manjhi and 'pramod @ Kumod Manjhi came armed with lathi and after rebuking him, stated that why he had left his goat to graze their maize in the field, and when he denied the fact, Arun Manjhi assaulted him with lathi on his head causing serious injury. Then, he fell down and became unconscious. Thereafter, both of them assaulted him. However, the villagers came and his life was saved. The informant was sent to hospital for his treatment. 6. On the basis of the said written report, police registered a case for the offence under Section 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, and subsequently, since, he died after ten days, the case was also registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation police submitted charge sheet in the case. 7. Since, the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned C.J.M., after taking cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions and finally the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka himself tried the appellant and convicted the appellant as aforesaid. 8. It appears that in course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. P.W. 1 is Niwas Manjhi, who has declared hostile. P.W. 2 is Hemlal Manjhi, who has also declared hostile. P.W. 3 is Keshar Manjhi, who has also declared hostile. P.W. 4 is Narayan Manjhi. P.W. 5 is Manti Devi. P.W. 6 is Patrakni Devi. P.W. 7 is Jiwan Manjhi. P.W. 8 is Arvind Kumar Singh, who is the I.O. of the case. P.W. 9 is Dr. Binoy Sharma, who examined the deceased. P.W. 10 is Md. Ehsan. 9. P.W. 3 is Keshar Manjhi, who has also declared hostile. P.W. 4 is Narayan Manjhi. P.W. 5 is Manti Devi. P.W. 6 is Patrakni Devi. P.W. 7 is Jiwan Manjhi. P.W. 8 is Arvind Kumar Singh, who is the I.O. of the case. P.W. 9 is Dr. Binoy Sharma, who examined the deceased. P.W. 10 is Md. Ehsan. 9. It is important to note that P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have turned hostile in the trial and they have not supported the prosecution case. However, the other witnesses i.e. P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 have fully corroborated the statement given by the deceased in his F.I.R., P.W. 5, Manti Devi stated in Court that at the time of occurrence, she was present in his 'Bari', which is just by the side of the place of occurrence and she heard that the accused, Arun Manjhi and his brother, Pramod Manjhi were rebuking the deceased, Goutam Manjhi as to why' he had left his goat for grazing their maize in the field and when he denied the fact, then this accused gave a lathi blow on his head causing serious injury. Then, he fell down and became unconscious. However, the villagers came and gave water to the informant-deceased, Goutam Manjhi and when he regain his consciousness, he went to the police station, and thereafter, he was sent to hospital for his treatment. 10. P.W. 6, Patrakni Devi has also stated that at the time of occurrence, hearing hulla, she came out of her house and saw that both the accused Arun Manjhi and Kumod Manjhi are rebuking the deceased, Goutam Manjhi as to why he had left his goat for grazing their maize in the field and when he denied, the accused Arun Manjhi gave a lathi blow on his head and he received head injury and he became unconscious. After sometime, the villagers came and gave water etc. to him and thereafter, he was taken to the hospital and subsequently, he died on 10.9.1999. 11. P.W. 7, Jiwan Manjhi has also supported the prosecution case, but in his cross-examination at para 6, he stated that after regaining his consciousness, the deceased had gone to the police station on foot and gave the statement and after that the statement was read out to him. 11. P.W. 7, Jiwan Manjhi has also supported the prosecution case, but in his cross-examination at para 6, he stated that after regaining his consciousness, the deceased had gone to the police station on foot and gave the statement and after that the statement was read out to him. He also stated at para 12 that after treatment in Jarmundi Hospital, the deceased, Goutam Manjhi came to the village and after 2-3 days, he went to Dumka Hospital, where he died on 10.9.1999. 12. P.W. 9, Dr. Binoy Sharma" has also proved the injury report and post mortem report as Ext.-2 and stated that the deceased had only received one injury on his head, which was one stitched wound 3" long, caused by hard and blunt substance like lathi. 13. Thus, from the evidences discussed above, it appears that during hot exchange of words between the deceased and the accused and his brother, this accused gave a lathi blow causing injury on his head as it appears from the evidences of P.W. 7, Jiwan Manjhi that after treatment in Jarmundi Hospital, the deceased, Goutam Manjhi came to the village and after 2-3 days, he went to Dumka Hospital, where he died on 10.9.1999 during treatment, which shows that initially the injury was not very serious and there was no intention to commit the death of the deceased. The accused has no knowledge that the deceased will die due to this lathi blow. Actually, due to the delay in treatment he died. It appears that after treatment in Jarmundi hospital, he came to the village and after 3-4 days, he went to Dumka hospital, which resulted into the death of the deceased. In that view of the matter, the offence committed by the accused will come under Section 304 (part-II) of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is altered to the conviction under Section 304 (part-II) of the Indian Penal Code. 14. It appears that the appellant has remained in custody from 27.9.1999 till 6.9.2002 i.e. for about three years, and also he has undergone the torture of trial and appeal since the date of occurrence i.e. 1.9.1999. 15. In my opinion, the period of three years undergone by the appellant in custody during trial, is sufficient punishment and any further sentence is unwarranted. 15. In my opinion, the period of three years undergone by the appellant in custody during trial, is sufficient punishment and any further sentence is unwarranted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in the result, the appellant is sentenced to the period of two years already undergone by him under Section 304 (part-II) of the Indian Penal Code. 16. With the aforesaid alteration in the sentence, this appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is on bail and so he is released from the bondage of the bail bond.