Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1433 (PAT)

Urmila Devi v. State of Bihar

2013-12-11

ANJANA PRAKASH

body2013
JUDGMENT : Smt. Anjana Prakash, J. - The appellants of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 269 of 2001 have been convicted under Section 304(ii), IPC and sentenced to RI for four years and a fine of Rs. 2,500/- and in default of which further imprisonment for six months. The appellant No.1 has further been convicted under Section 325, IPC and sentenced to RI for three years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of which further imprisonment for two months. The appellant of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 335 of 2001 has been convicted under Section 304(ii), IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to RI for a period of eight years and three years respectively and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,500/- respectively and in default of which further imprisonment for one year and six months respectively by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nalanda in S.Tr. No. 263 of 1997 by a common judgment and order dated 2.8.2001. 2. Initially the appellants were charged under Sections 302 and 302/34, IPC but acquitted of the said charges and convicted as mentioned above. 3. The case of the informant, Ranjit Kumar (deceased) is that on 18.10.1996 at about 7.30 A.M. a dispute arose between the parties over the cock having entered in his house at which appellant, Urmila Devi started abusing them. The Informant protested at her abuses which infuriated the appellants and then appellant, Rajani Kumar Bharti @ Tinku Kumar fired with his pistol on account of which the informant sustained injuries in his abdomen. Appellant Sita Ram Prasad started brick-batting which hit the head of Anuj Prasad whereas the brick-batting of appellant, Urmila Devi caused injuries on the father of the Informant. Four days later, the informant died upon which the case was converted to one under Section 302, IPC. 4. During trial the prosecution examined eight witnesses whereas the Defence examined two witnesses. 5. PW 1, Bankey Prasad an independent witness has stated that on the date of occurrence he saw quarrel between Urmila Devi and the mother of Anuj Kumar with regard to cocks. In the meanwhile, Anuj Kumar, Ranjit Prasad and Shree Prasad came there from his house whereas from the other side Sita Ram Prasad and Tinku Kumar came out and exhorted. Appellant, Tinku Kumar then fired with his pistol which hit on the right portion of the abdomen of Ranjit Kumar (deceased). In the meanwhile, Anuj Kumar, Ranjit Prasad and Shree Prasad came there from his house whereas from the other side Sita Ram Prasad and Tinku Kumar came out and exhorted. Appellant, Tinku Kumar then fired with his pistol which hit on the right portion of the abdomen of Ranjit Kumar (deceased). Further, appellant Urmila Devi brick-batted Sheo Prasad causing injury to him whereas appellant Sita Ram Prasad which hit the back portion of Anuj Kumar. He stated that immediately Ranjit Kumar was rushed to the hospital where his statement was recorded and during course of treatment he died. He stated that on 3.11.1996 Shree Prasad also died at his residence. 6. PW 2, Bhikhari Mahto has been declared hostile since he supports the case of the prosecution. 7. PW3, Maya Devi is the mother of deceased, Ranjit Kumar and wife of Shree Prasad the other deceased. He stated that while she was inside her house along with her two sons Anuj Kumar and Ranjit Kumar and her husband the cock of the appellant Urmila Devi started polluting the house-hold articles at which they drove it out of house which led to an altercation between Urmila Devi and prosecution party. Urmila Devi started abusing them which was protested to by the prosecution. Then Shree Prasad came there and on the exhortation appellant, Sita Ram Prasad, Tinku Kumar fired which hit on the abdomen of Ranjit Kumar. Urmila Devi also assaulted the other deceased with brickbat which caused injury on the back of his head. Both the deceased died later on in course of treatment on 20.10.1996 and 3.11.1996 respectively. 8. PW 4, Anuj Kumar is the brother of Ranjit Kumar (deceased) who supported the entire factual aspect as narrated by PW 1. There is no material discrepancy in his evidence. 9. PW 5 is Dr. Ram Kumar Prasad held the post-mortem of Shree Prasad. He found a bandaged wound on the left side of forehead 1/2" X 1/4" bone deep with irregular margin with feature of healing. He further stated that death was on account of the injury on the head which had caused blood clots in the frontal region of the brain. 10. PW 6, Chhotey Lal Pd. has supported the factum of the occurrence but without giving any further reference about the manner of the same. 11. PW 7, Devendra Maharaj is the Investigating Officer. He further stated that death was on account of the injury on the head which had caused blood clots in the frontal region of the brain. 10. PW 6, Chhotey Lal Pd. has supported the factum of the occurrence but without giving any further reference about the manner of the same. 11. PW 7, Devendra Maharaj is the Investigating Officer. He stated that on the date of occurrence he received the fardbeyan of Ranjit Kumar through another ASI and recorded the statements of the witnesses. He also inspected the place of occurrence which did not have any notable feature which would point to discrepancies in the prosecution case. He further confirmed the death of Ranjit Kumar and Shree Prasad as stated by the witnesses. 12. PW 8, Dr. Bishundo Pd. held the post-mortem on the dead body of Ranjit Kumar the informant and found stitched wound 9.5" on the right side of abdomen and 1" right to the mid line of the abdomen. The intestine was found stitched at three places. The liver was also found stitched at one place. Death occurred on account of septicemia due to abdominal injury. 13. The defence witness has proved a surrender cum bail petition filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalanda and later sent to S.P. Nalanda by Urmila Devi. 14. DW 2, Ishwar Pd. Sinha stated that his daughter appellant, Urmila Devi was living with him at the time of occurrence since she was suffering from serious illness. 15. On a fair analysis of the evidence of the witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt where the manner of occurrence is concerned. 16. However, since the appellant, Rajani Kumar Bharti @ Tinku Kumar of Cr.Appeal (SJ) No. 335 of 2001 upon whom the allegation is of firing, on the deceased has remained in custody for about more than five years, the sentence is reduced to one already undergone by him during trial. However, a fine of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited by him in the Court below within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case, he fails to do so he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months RI. 17. As for the appellants. Urmila Devi and Sita Ram Prasad of Cr. However, a fine of Rs.5,000/- shall be deposited by him in the Court below within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case, he fails to do so he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months RI. 17. As for the appellants. Urmila Devi and Sita Ram Prasad of Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.269 of 2001 their conviction under Section 304(ii) is converted to one under Section 325/34, IPC and their sentence is reduced to a period already undergone by them during trial. However, they shall also deposit a sum of Rs. 2,500/- each in the Court below within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. In case they fail to do so they shall be imprisoned for a further period of three months. 18. On deposit of fine by the appellants as mentioned above, the trial Court shall notice the heirs of the informant and upon proper verification of their identity he shall disburse the fine deposited by the appellants within the shortest possible time. 19. With the aforesaid modification in conviction and sentence, both the appeals are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.