Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 812 (JHR)

Lakhindra Sabar @ Kekra v. State of Jharkhand

2011-08-29

P.P.BHATT, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
JUDGMENT Mrs. Chaitali C. Sinha, learned amicus curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant prayed for bail. The parties were directed to be prepared for final hearing in the second half. Later on. By Court.-Heard the parties finally on merits. 2. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 4.2.2011 and order of sentence dated 9.2.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in Sessions Trial No. 77 of 2008 convicting him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. The appellant was also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment, he was directed to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 3. The prosecution case in short is that on 25.9.2007 the informant, Deepak Sabar (PW 7) informed at about 8 p.m. that his grand-mother Mugoli Sabar (mother of the appellant) was making preparation of cooking food. In the meantime, the appellant came to the house from outside and started demanding money from her for visiting ‘Indira Mela’ which was refused by the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant started quarrelling with the deceased. The deceased came out of the room. The appellant dragged her by holding her hand from the verandah of the house. The appellant took the axe, which was kept at the verandah and assaulted the deceased on the right side of her head near the ear from the back side of the axe, as a result of which, she fell down and became unconscious. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses. PWs 1 to 6 are hostile witnesses. PW 7 is the informant, aged about 12 years, who happens to be the nephew of the appellant. He supported the prosecution case. He, inter alia, said that the appellant asked for money from the deceased for drinking liquor. When she refused, the appellant assaulted her by the back portion of ‘tangi’ on her head, due to which she died and then the appellant fled away. In the cross-examination, he said that earlier also, there used to be quarrel between the deceased and the appellant almost daily. 5. PW 8 is the Doctor. He opined that the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance. In his opinion, the death was due head and facial injuries. 6. Mrs. In the cross-examination, he said that earlier also, there used to be quarrel between the deceased and the appellant almost daily. 5. PW 8 is the Doctor. He opined that the injuries were caused by hard blunt substance. In his opinion, the death was due head and facial injuries. 6. Mrs. Sinha, learned amicus curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that at best, the appellant could be convicted under Section 304, Part II, IPC and not under Section 302, IPC. 7. On the other hand. Mr. Mahata, learned APP appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 8. We find force in the submission of Mrs. Sinha that the case falls under exception 4 to Section 300, IPC. Admittedly, the occurrence took place during quarrel between the deceased (mother) and the appellant (son), when she refused to give money the appellant for drinking liquor/visiting ‘Indira Mela’. There is no pre-meditation. The appellant during quarrel, assaulted the deceased by back portion of ‘tangi’ lying at the verandah of the house. The informant (PW 7) in the FIR and in his evidence said that the appellant gave single blow. The trial Court also held that the other injuries may be due to fall. In the FIR it was said that the appellant dragged the deceased to the verandah. All this explains the injuries. 9. It may also be noted that I.O. has not been examined in this case. 10. In the circumstances, the conviction is altered under Section 304. Part II, IPC. So far as the sentence is concerned, Mrs. Sinha submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 3 years and 11 months by now. In the circumstances, the appellant is sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years. In other words, after completion of four years, he will be released. 11. With this modification in the conviction and sentence, this appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.