Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 241 (JHR)

Sukhu Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-02

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : 1. Appellant-Sukhu Marandi was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Tekari Hansda. The trial court having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 21.4.2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 26 of 2001 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide its order dated 22.4.2003. 2. The case of the prosecution is that while the informant-Fuchu Maranchi (P.W.7) was at Village Jojotola, one Motilal Hansda informed him that his mother has been killed by the appellant. On getting said information, when the informant came home, he found his mother dead and the villagers had caught hold of the appellant. There he was told by his wife-Baha Muni Hansda (P.W.4) that while her mother-in-law, Tekari Hansda (deceased) was in her house, this appellant came there in intoxicated state armed with 'Bhala' and inflicted 'Bhala' injury over the chest of the deceased. 3. Thereafter, informant-Fuchu Maranchi (P.W.7) came to the police station where he gave fard-beyan which was recorded by P.W.6-Raj Kumar Lakra, the then Dy. S.P. who himself took over the investigation during which he seized the 'spear' smeared with blood under Seizure List (Ext.3). The Investigating Officer held the inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4). Thereupon the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Bindu Bhushan P.W.1 who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries:- A sharp cut injury 3” x 1½” x visceral depth with cutting of sternum xiphyoid process on front of chest wall. On dissection of scull -brain tissues were found pale. On opening of chest wall, sternum xiphyoid was found fractured and left thorax cavity was found full of blood middle lobe of left lung was found punctured. Heart was also found punctured and empty. 4. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.1) with an opinion that the death was caused due to injury of lung and heart by heavy sharp cutting instrument. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses. 5. On completion of the investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 6. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 7 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 2-Shiv Hansda, P.W. 3-Sanatan Hansda have testified that when they came to know that the deceased has been done to death, they came to the place of occurrence and found Tekari Hansda dead and thereafter they arrested the appellant. P.W. 4-Baha Mani Hansda, daughter-in-law of the deceased, happened to be the sole eye witness. According to her, while she was in her house, his mother-in-law (deceased) was sitting over there having a child on her lap, the appellant came there having 'Bhala' with him and inflicted injury over the chest of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased died. P.W. 7-Fuchu Marandi-informant happened to be the hearsay witness who did testify in the same manner as he had stated in the fard-beyan. 7. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. over the incriminating evidence appearing against him, he simply denied it. 8. Thereupon, the trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimony of P.W. 4-sole eye witness getting corroboration from the medical evidence, did find the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 9. Mr. Deo, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits with all vehemence that the prosecution has not come forward with a case of motive and, therefore, in that situation, it can be said that there was no reason on the part of this appellant to commit murder of the deceased. 9. Mr. Deo, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits with all vehemence that the prosecution has not come forward with a case of motive and, therefore, in that situation, it can be said that there was no reason on the part of this appellant to commit murder of the deceased. Further submission, which was advanced on behalf of the appellant, is that admittedly, the appellant was under the influence of liquor and, therefore, he would not have been in the state of mind to realize the consequence what he has been doing and under the circumstances, the case can never fall within the mischief of Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, rather the case will fall in the category of culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. Further, submission, which was advanced, is that it is the specific case of the prosecution that this appellant inflicted 'Bhala' injury over the chest of the deceased, but surprisingly, the injury, which has been found on the person of the deceased, is in the nature of sharp cut, which cannot be caused by 'Bhala' rather that kind of injury could be caused by heavy sharp edged weapon and, thereby, the testimony of sole eye witness-P.W.4 never gets corroboration from the medical evidence and under the circumstances, the trial court seems to have committed illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which is fit to be set aside. 10. Heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, the learned counsel for the State. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that the case of the prosecution, as has been testified by Baha Muni Hansda (P.W.4), the sole eye witness, is that while she was in her house, her mother-in-law (Tekari Hansda) was sitting over there having a child in her lap, all on sudden, the appellant came armed with 'Bhala' and inflicted injury over the chest of the deceased, causing injury resulting into her death. This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the defence extensively but nothing could be extracted on the material point, so as to have have a slightest of doubt over the trustworthiness of Baha Muni Hansda (P.W.4). This witness has been cross-examined on behalf of the defence extensively but nothing could be extracted on the material point, so as to have have a slightest of doubt over the trustworthiness of Baha Muni Hansda (P.W.4). Thus, it does appear that it is the case of direct evidence and in that event, even if the prosecution does not come with the motive, it would hardly effect the case of the prosecution. 12. Furthermore, we do find that the injury, which was found on the person of the deceased, according to the doctor, was sharp cut injury and in that event, submission has been advanced to the effect that, that kind of the injury can never be caused by 'Bhala' as any injury inflicted with 'Bhala' would be in the nature of punctured wound but if we will look to the evidence of the doctor, he at the same time did find heart as well well left lungs punctured. In that event, indication is sufficient that the injury, which the doctor has described as sharp cut injury, must have been in the nature of punctured wound. 13. Going further in the matter, it be stated that the submission was also advanced that since the appellant committed murder of the deceased while he was in intoxicating condition, he may not be aware of the consequence, which he did and thereby, he cannot be said to have had intention or knowledge to commit murder of the deceased. This submission is devoid of any merit. 14. In this regard, we may refer to Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as follows:- 85. Act of a person in capable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will —Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. From perusal of the said provision, one does find that the protection under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code is available to the accused when he was made to be intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will. 15. From perusal of the said provision, one does find that the protection under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code is available to the accused when he was made to be intoxicated without his knowledge or against his will. 15. Here in the instant case, it never happens to be the case of the defence that the appellant before committing murder of the deceased was made to be intoxicated by any one. 16. Under the circumstances, we do find that the protection, as has been enshrined under Section 85 of the Indian Penal Code, is not available to the accused. 17. Thus, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. 18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed. 19. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.