Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 386 (JHR)

Sudra Munda Sukram Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-19

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment By Court: Heard the parties finally. Both these appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 06.01.2012 and order of sentence dated 07.01.2012 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-1, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 745 of 2005, convicting the appellants under sections 302/34 & 201/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-each and R.I. for five years and fine of Rs. 2,000/-each for the offence committed under sections 201/34 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Etwa Munda (PW-3) gave his fardbeyan on 29.04.2005 that on 27.04.2005 at about 7.00 AM he had gone to fetch wood from jungle. In the afternoon, he saw his neighbour-Sukram Munda and Sudra Munda (appellants) coming from village side and appellant-Sukram Munda was telling that he would kill Nadi Mundain (deceased), sister of the informant, when he will find her. The informant after taking dinner, went to bed. On the next morning, his sister-in-law was alone in the house and on Thursday his wife Bahamuni Devi told him that the dead body of her elder sister Nadi Mundain was lying in the well. The informant went there and found the dead body. Villagers came there. The informant told about this fact to his nephew-Gobardhan Munda (PW-9) and others. It is further alleged that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellants six months ago. 3. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on various grounds. He submitted that as per the prosecution, appellants confessed that there was quarrel between them and the deceased over sharing of 'Hadia' (country liquor) during which the appellant-Sukram Munda assaulted her with 'Pidha' (wooden stool) on her head, due to which she died. He further submitted that except this, there is nothing against the appellants. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 5. After hearing the parties at length and going through the records carefully, it appears that as per the prosecution case, appellants confessed that the deceased asked for 'Hadia' (country liquor) which was refused by the appellant-Sudra Munda. This led to quarrel between them, during which the deceased entered into the house of Sudra Munda-appellant. 5. After hearing the parties at length and going through the records carefully, it appears that as per the prosecution case, appellants confessed that the deceased asked for 'Hadia' (country liquor) which was refused by the appellant-Sudra Munda. This led to quarrel between them, during which the deceased entered into the house of Sudra Munda-appellant. The appellant-Sukram Munda followed her and he assaulted her with 'Pidha' (wooden stool) on her head, due to which she died. Thereafter, they threw her dead body into the well. The doctor who conducted postmortem, found one lacerated wound on the head of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance, which may be 'Pidha', which was the cause of death. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant-Sudra Munda for the offence under sections 302/201 IPC is set aside. However, his conviction for the offence under sections 201/34 IPC is upheld. 7. So far as conviction of appellant-Sukram Munda is concerned, his conviction for the offence under sections 302/34 IPC is converted into sections 304 Part-II IPC. His conviction under sections 201/34 IPC is upheld. 8. So far as sentence is concerned, it is stated that the appellants are in jail for about seven years. In view of the modification in the conviction, the appellant-Sudra Munda appears to have served out his sentence. So far as the appellant-Sukram Munda is concerned, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail. The fine imposed on them is set aside. 9. The appellants are in jail. They are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case. 10. With these modification in conviction and sentence, these appeals stand partly allowed.