Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 976 (JHR)

Mochi Roy Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2019-05-02

H.C.MISHRA, S.K.DWIVEDI

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2001 and Order of sentence dated 06.02.2001, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No. 488 of 1998, whereby, the appellant, who was facing the trial for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, has been found guilty and convicted only for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Banwari Singh Munda, the son of the deceased Ram Ratan Singh Munda, recorded at his house in village Piska Hatu, P.S. Arki, in the then District of Ranchi, on 18.07.1997, at about 4:00 P.M., wherein he has stated that on the same day at about 10:00 A.M., he had gone to his agriculture field along with his father Ram Ratan Singh Munda and mother Chaiti Devi, for irrigating the field, and while they were returning and reached their village at about 2:30 P.M., near the house of Soma Mahto, the accused Mochi Roy Munda, who was standing on the way, assaulted his father by bomb, which exploded on the body of his father, causing injuries near his right ear, and his father died at the spot. At that time, the informant and his mother were coming behind his father. Thereafter, the accused fled away scaling the wall. He has stated that upon the sound of bomb, several persons came there and saw them, whom he informed about the occurrence. It is also stated in the fardbeyan that the occurrence had taken place due to about twenty years' old land dispute between the parties, for which there was a suit also, which was decreed in favour of the father of the informant. He has also stated that about 21-22 years ago, due to the said land dispute, his father was assaulted by arrow by the late father of this accused, for which also there was a police case. He has also stated that about 21-22 years ago, due to the said land dispute, his father was assaulted by arrow by the late father of this accused, for which also there was a police case. After the death of his father, the accused was also demanding share in the land, which was being denied, as actually he had no share. Claiming that for the said land dispute the accused had assaulted his father by bomb causing his death, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which Arki P.S. Case No. 38 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No. 377 of 1997, was instituted against the sole accused for the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused Mochi Roy Munda, for the offences under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substance Act, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, was put to trial. In course of trial, ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-7 Yogendra Tiwary, P.W.-8 Mahim Puran and P.W.-9 Nildhaj Puran have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case at all. P.W.-10 Bindeshwari Ram is only a formal witness and his evidence is not at all important in the case. 5. P.W.-2 Banwari Singh Munda is the informant of the case and the son of the deceased, and P.W.-4 Chaiti Devi is the mother of the informant and the wife of the deceased, and they are the only eye witnesses to the occurrence. Both these witnesses have stated that while they were returning from the agriculture field, this accused had assaulted the deceased by bomb causing his death at the spot. They have also stated about the previous enmity due to the land dispute between the parties and have identified the accused in the Court. The specific statement of these witnesses is that the deceased was assaulted by bomb, which hit him, due to which he died. They have also stated about the previous enmity due to the land dispute between the parties and have identified the accused in the Court. The specific statement of these witnesses is that the deceased was assaulted by bomb, which hit him, due to which he died. The informant P.W.-2 Banwari Singh Munda has also stated that he had given the fardbeyan to the police, on which he has proved his signature, which was marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved his signature and the signature of a witness, on the inquest report of the dead body, which were marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/1 respectively. 6. P.W.-1 Kushal Puran had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence itself, whereas P.W.-5 Soma Mahto had seen the dead body at the house of the deceased, and they are the hearsay witnesses, and were informed about the occurrence by the informant and his mother. P.W.-5 Soma Mahto is also a witness to the seizure list, and he has proved his signature and the signature of another witness on the seizure list, which were marked Exhibits-4 and 4/1 respectively. 7. P.W.-3 Dr.Vijay Kumar Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 19.07.1997, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Lacerated injury 5”x2”x1” on right side of parietal region 2” above right ear, antero posterior having lacerated muscle, crushed bone and brain matter. Some part of brain matter came out. (ii) Lacerated injury 3”x1”x½“on right shoulder. (iii) Internal Injury :- (iii) Cranial cavity filled clotted blood and brain matter underneath found lacerated. He has stated that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, and were caused by heavy, hard and blunt substance. He has also stated that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as the injuries were very severe and sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-3. 8. P.W.-6 Izazul Hassan Siddique is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 18.07.1997 he was posted as A.S.I., in Arki Police Station, and he was handed over the charge of investigation of this case by the Officer-Incharge of the police station. 8. P.W.-6 Izazul Hassan Siddique is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 18.07.1997 he was posted as A.S.I., in Arki Police Station, and he was handed over the charge of investigation of this case by the Officer-Incharge of the police station. He has proved the fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R., to be in the hand writing and signature of the Officer-Incharge, and the same were marked Exhibits-5 and 6 respectively. He has also proved the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit-7. He has also proved the inquest report of the dead body. He has stated that he had recorded the re-statement of the informant and had also inspected the place of occurrence, which is a village road. He has stated that the house of the accused is also adjacent to the place of occurrence, and there were several houses and a primary school nearby. He also found the remnants of the bomb at the place of occurrence, which he had seized and had prepared the seizure list and had sent the same for forensic examination. He has stated that the forensic examination report was received, which he has identified in the Court, which was marked 'X' for identification. This witness has stated that he had found the dead body at the house of the informant lying on a cot, where he had prepared the inquest report of the dead body. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. He has stated that the accused had surrendered in the Court. 9. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. The defence has also examined one witness, D.W.-1 Mahendra Singh, an Assistant of the Civil Court, who has proved the signature of the A.C.J.M. on the F.I.R., which was marked Exhibit-A and has also proved the order-sheet dated 21.7.1997 in this case, which was marked Exhibit-B, and both these exhibits have been marked to show that the F.I.R. had reached the Court on 21.7.1997. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as aforesaid. 10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, as aforesaid. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that there is admitted enmity between the parties for the land dispute, which was about 20-21 years old, and as such the false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out, particularly, in view of the fact that not a single witness has come to support the prosecution case as eye witness to the occurrence, even though the time of occurrence is about 2:30 P.M., and the occurrence had taken place in a densely populated village. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that even though it is a clear-cut case of the prosecution that the deceased had been assaulted to death by bomb, but no bomb explosion injury was found on the dead body of the deceased, rather the injuries found were caused by heavy, hard and blunt substance, as proved by P.W.-3 Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the entire prosecution case becomes absolutely doubtful in view of the medical evidence which does not corroborate the ocular evidence at all, and it is a fit case in which the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer, and has submitted that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-2 Banwari Singh Munda, the informant, and his mother P.W.-4 Chaiti Devi as eye witnesses to the occurrence, and they have stood the test of cross-examination, as nothing could be taken in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Learned counsel also submitted that P.W.-1 Kushal Puran and P.W.-5 Soma Mahto have also supported the prosecution as hearsay witnesses to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the medical evidence on record also corroborates the ocular evidence of these witnesses, inasmuch as, the lacerated wound could be caused even due to the bomb explosion, and the site of the injuries found by the Doctor is the same, as stated by these witnesses. It is further submitted that the medical evidence on record also corroborates the ocular evidence of these witnesses, inasmuch as, the lacerated wound could be caused even due to the bomb explosion, and the site of the injuries found by the Doctor is the same, as stated by these witnesses. Learned counsel also pointed out that the remnants of bomb were found at the place of occurrence, by the I.O. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is supported by P.W.-2 Banwari Singh Munda and his mother P.W.-4 Chaiti Devi as eye witnesses to the occurrence. The specific evidence of these witnesses is that the accused had assaulted the deceased by hurling bomb, which exploded on the body of the deceased, due to which the deceased died at the spot. This ocular evidence is not corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3, which show there were only crushing of the muscles, bone and the brain matter. The Doctor has clearly stated that this injury was caused by some heavy, hard and blunt substance. Lacerated wound with crushing injuries only, could not be found in case of injuries caused by any explosive substance, and in this regard, a reference may be made to Modi's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition, page 647, wherein the explosion injuries has been described by the learned author, relevant portion of which is as follows:- "A person can be injured by an explosion by many ways:- (a) If he is very near the seat of the explosion he can be blown to pieces and scattered by the force of the explosion gases. (b) If he is near enough for the skin to be in contact with the explosion flame, he can sustain the usual kind of flame burn. This type of burn is also caused by contact with clothing or other material ignited by the explosion. At greater distances, exposure to the momentary heat radiation causes flash burns which can equally be serious. (c) ------------------ . (d) A person can be struck by flying missiles propelled by the explosion. (e) ------------------ . This type of burn is also caused by contact with clothing or other material ignited by the explosion. At greater distances, exposure to the momentary heat radiation causes flash burns which can equally be serious. (c) ------------------ . (d) A person can be struck by flying missiles propelled by the explosion. (e) ------------------ . (f) He can be engulfed by flames formed as a result of the explosion. According to the prosecution case, the seat of the explosion was the injury on the dead body of the deceased, and in that view of the matter that portion of the dead body ought to have blown into pieces and scattered by force of exposition and gases. Even if the seat of explosion was near the deceased, burn injuries ought to have been found. There was no chance of having any crushing injury only, and even if it is taken that the bomb had exploded at some distance from the deceased, the flash burn injuries must have been found on the dead body, about which there is no mention in the evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Vijay Kumar Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-3, which clearly show that the injuries on the dead body were found to be caused by heavy, hard and blunt substance. We also find that there is admitted enmity between the parties since very long due to the land dispute between them, and though it is alleged that the occurrence had taken place near the house of the accused, but the dead body was removed from that place, and it was taken to the house of the deceased, where P.W.-5 Soma Mahto and the I.O. P.W.-6 Izazul Hassan Siddique had found the dead body. As such, even if the I.O. had found the remnants of the bomb explosion at the alleged place of occurrence, but the dead body was not found there, by the I.O. There is also an unexplained delay in sending the FIR to the Court, inasmuch as, the FIR was lodged on 18.7.1997, whereas it was sent to the Court on 21.7.19987. 13. 13. In the facts of this case, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, beyond all reasonable doubts, and even if the prosecution case is supported by the two eye witnesses, it is a case in which the appellant was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. For the foregoing reasons, impugned Judgment of conviction dated 31.01.2001 and Order of sentence dated 06.02.2001, passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in S.T. No. 488 of 1998, convicting and sentencing the appellant Mochi Roy Munda, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant Mochi Roy Munda is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant is on bail, and he is discharged from the liabilities of his bail bond. 15. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.