Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 93 (JHR)

Loseya Pingua @ Tapu Pingua v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-17

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment : By Court : This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7.10.2001 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and accordingly he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also sentenced to pay a fine of rupees two thousand and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant-Budhram Pingua (PW3) who happened to be the Munda of the village gave his fard beyan on 2.4.2000 at 4.10 p.m. to the effect that Sukhlal Pingua was killed by the appellant by shooting an arrow upon him while he was sleeping. 3. On the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant (PW3), Majhgaon PS Case No. 12 of 2000 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant who faced the trial and was convicted as aforesaid. 4. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses. PW1 Atua Pingua, who is a hearsay witness, has stated that the appellant had bow and arrow in his hand and he fled away towards his house after coming out of the house of the deceased. PW 2 Rajendra Pingua, PW3 informant, and PW 6 Kapalan Pingua are hear-say witnesses. PW4 Randai Kui, the wife of the deceased, is said to be the eye witness. PW7 is Dr. A.K.Gupta who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. 5. Mr. P.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment submitted that at best the appellant could be convicted under section 304 (part 1) of the Indian Penal Code. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment. 7. It has come in evidence that there was no dispute between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant is said to have come suddenly in day hours and shot an arrow on the stomach of the deceased when he was sleeping. PW7, the doctor found that the deceased died due to one arrow injury. The doctor did not find any other injury on the dead body of the deceased. The size of the injury was 1”x ½ “ whereas the size of the arrow was 6”x2”. PW7, the doctor found that the deceased died due to one arrow injury. The doctor did not find any other injury on the dead body of the deceased. The size of the injury was 1”x ½ “ whereas the size of the arrow was 6”x2”. The doctor observed that the arrow punctured the liver. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and carefully going through the evidence on record, we find that there is nothing on the record to show that the appellant had intention to kill the deceased, though he shot the arrow on the vital part of the deceased while he was sleeping. 9 Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is held guilty for commission of offence under section 304 (Part 1) of the Indian Penal Code . 10 For the reasons aforesaid, this appeal is dismissed, but with the modification in the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 118 of 2001. The appellant is convicted under section 304 (Part I) IPC instead of section 302 IPC and he is sentenced to the period already undergone, as he is said to have remained in custody for about eleven years. He is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in connection with any other case(s).