Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1925 (JHR)

Satto Mirdha v. State of Jharkhand

2019-11-28

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 24.01.2014 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 and 341 IPC, whereas the learned appellate court while affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 341 IPC. The petitioner was directed to undergo sentence for a period of 5 years with fine for the offence under Section 307 IPC. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 181/09 has been instituted under Section 341, 323, 325 and 307 IPC on the basis of a written report submitted by one Sumeshwar Mirdha and according to him on 27.10.2009 at 1:30 P.M. he was digging a pit for flowing water from hand pump situated in front of his house. In the meantime Satto Mirdha (accused) armed with spade came there and asked the informant to fill up the pit. The accused further told that he shall not allow him to dig the pit, upon this the informant replied that he has dug the pit on his own land and thereafter the accused inflicted a blow from blunt portion of spade on the head of informant causing bleeding injury and due to this informant fell down. It is alleged that the accused started assaulting the informant by lathi and on alarm the villagers and mother of the informant assembled there and brought him to police station. According to the informant the accused wanted to kill him. The police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the accused. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is P.W.-4 and he is nephew of the informant as such they are related to each other. He further submits that there was a sudden altercation with regard to digging of the pit. As a matter of fact the petitioner has no intention to kill the informant rather it was sudden altercation and due to that, he gave the spade blow to the informant. He further submits that there was a sudden altercation with regard to digging of the pit. As a matter of fact the petitioner has no intention to kill the informant rather it was sudden altercation and due to that, he gave the spade blow to the informant. He further submits that the injury was simple in nature as admitted by doctor who was examined as P.W.-5 and the petitioner was discharged within 12 hours from the hospital as such, the learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC. At best, he could have convicted under Section 323 IPC for the reason that the injury was simple in nature as admitted by the prosecution also. He concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner remained in custody for about 7 months and at present aged about 50 years as such, some leniency may be granted by this Court. 4. The learned APP supports the impugned orders and submits that though there was a land dispute between the parties but this itself does not give a right to any person to hurt others and the learned trial court after appreciating the entire evidence, both oral and documentary convicted the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has already been granted relief by the learned appellate court to the extent that he has already been acquitted from the charge under Section 341 IPC. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP. Perused the impugned orders and the lower court record. To attract the provision under Section 307 IPC, there has to be intention and knowledge to cause death. For better appreciation, it would be relevant to refer Section 307 IPC, which is quoted hereinbelow: “307. Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life-convicts.—[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.]” 6. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner stopped the informant from digging the pit and it is also admitted that when the informant refused to do the same he gave a spade blow over the head of the informant. It has also come on evidence that blood was oozing out from the head and the informant became unconscious. It has also come on record that when the mother and the brother of the informant-P.W.-4 came to rescue, they were also assaulted by feet and slaps but all these acts does not indicate any intention of the petitioner to cause murder of the informant. Admittedly, it was a sudden altercation due to digging of the pit for flow of water from chapakal situated in front of the house of the informant, as such the act of the accused cannot be said to be premeditated. It is also a fact that the injury was simple in nature and the informant was released from the hospital after overnight stay. From the record it is evident that there is no repeated blow by the petitioner. As informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, even now the petitioner and the informant are living together in the same village and are neighbours so in my considered opinion, the learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 because of the obvious reason that the main ingredients; “intention and knowledge to cause death” is not present in the instant case. 7. However, the petitioner is certainly liable for the Act of causing hurt as such conviction under Section 307 is modified to the extent that the petitioner is convicted under Section 323 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 6 months. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has remained in custody for more than 6 months. 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds subject to payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/-which shall be paid before the District Legal Services Authority, Dumka within a period of 3 months from the date of this order failing which, the petitioner shall go simple imprisonment for 6 months. 9. With the aforesaid observations, directions and modification, this revision application is disposed of. 10. Let the lower court record be sent to the concerned court forthwith. 11. Let the copy of the order be sent to the learned trial court and District Legal Services Authority, Dumka forthwith.