Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 744 (JHR)

Raj Kumar Singh Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-14

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
ORDER 1. By Court-Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. However, Counsel for the State is present. 2. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 22.11.2003 passed by Shri Rabindra Nath Tiwary, Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C.-9, Ranchi in ST No. 511 of 2011 convicting the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life and six months for charge under Section 309 I.P.C. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case in short is that P.W. 7 (Mahesh Munda) lodged a Fardbayan on 8.8.2001 at 2.30 hours in the Hospital near dead body of his sister Sakri Devi that she was married with the appellant about one year back. On 5.8.2001 at about 7 a.m. she was making broom where the appellant was sitting. She told the appellant to cut the broom. While doing so when the appellant used 'Dab' to cut broom suddenly it hit on the head of Sakri Devi causing bleeding injury and then she fell down. On this, the appellant in a confused condition tried to commit suicide by cutting his neck. The persons present there snatched 'Dab' from his hand. 4. The F.I.R. was registered under Section 304 I.P.C. but on the request of the Investigating Officer Sections 302 & 309 I.P.C. were added. 5. P.W. 1 mother of the deceased simply said that while her daughter was making broom, the appellant assaulted her by 'DAB'. P.W. 2 is the aunt of the deceased. She, inter alia, said that the appellant told Sakri to make small brooms to which she did not agree. The appellant assaulted by 'DAB' on her head. When her 'Gotni' tried to save her, the appellant also assaulted her. P.W. 3 is the hearsay witness. P.W. 4 is the Doctor, who conducted post mortem and found three injuries on the head of the deceased. P.Ws. 5, 6 & 8 are the hearsay witnesses. P.W. 7 is the informant. He supported the version in the F.I.R. He said that relationship between the appellant and the deceased were good. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 10 & 11 are the formal witness. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the State and going through the materials on record, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. The eye-witnesses are not consistent in the narration about the occurrence. P.W. 9 is the Investigating Officer. P.Ws. 10 & 11 are the formal witness. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the State and going through the materials on record, we are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellant. The eye-witnesses are not consistent in the narration about the occurrence. Three injuries on the head of the deceased remained unexplained. There appears no motive for the alleged occurrence. Either the occurrence took place accidentally or the occurrence took place for not obeying the order of the appellant to make small brooms, is not clear. The appellant has remained in jail for about 11 years. 7. In the result this appeal is allowed. 8. The appellant, who remained in jail for about 11 years, is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in other case.