Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 923 (JHR)

Lakhan Singh Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2022-07-26

NAVNEET KUMAR

body2022
JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction dated 31.03.2006 and order of sentence dated 04.04.2006 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-II, Khunti in S.T. No. 186 of 2002, arising out of Tamar P.S. Case No.62 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. No. 334 of 2001 whereby and where under the accused appellant (including one deceased appellant) was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 304/34 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years. 2. It appears from the record that there were two appellants namely Karan @ Karno Singh Munda and Lakhan Singh Munda and out of whom appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda has expired in the year 2021. The report called for has been received from the Court of District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Khunti, by which, it appears that the appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda had expired and the death certificate has been given by “Gram Pradhan”, Revenue Village: Dulmi, Panchayat Janumpidi, Tamar, Ranchi and the father Lakhan Singh Munda, who was appellant No.2 in this appeal. 3. In this view of the matter, learned defence counsel Smt. Nivedita Kundu appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that let this appeal be abated with respect to the deceased appellant as no close relative on behalf of him has come forward to continue with this appeal on his behalf. 4. Accordingly, this appeal gets abated with respect to the deceased appellant No.1 Karan @ Karno Singh Munda and let his name be deleted from the cause title of memo of appeal. 5. Now this appeal is heard on behalf of the sole appellant Lakhan Singh Munda. 6. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the fardbeyan of informant PW – 1 Sukru Mundain (Sukru Devi), whose statement was recorded by S.I. Shamim Ahmad Khan, Officer-Incharge of Tamar police station on 13.07.2001 at 16.00 hours at village Dulmi. She stated in the fardbayan that her paddy field was situated at a distance of 100 yards south of village over which she had already grown paddy crops, adjacent to her paddy field, the paddy field of Lakhan Munda is also situated, who had not yet grown paddy crops over his land. She stated in the fardbayan that her paddy field was situated at a distance of 100 yards south of village over which she had already grown paddy crops, adjacent to her paddy field, the paddy field of Lakhan Munda is also situated, who had not yet grown paddy crops over his land. Further it has been alleged that Lakhan Singh Munda along with his son Karno Singh Munda started cultivating their paddy field for the purpose of growing paddy crops and her husband had been there to see his land wherein he found that Lakhan and Karno, father & Son, were cutting the embankment of his paddy field which was dissuaded & precluded by her husband, thereupon Lakhan Singh Munda assaulted her husband by Lathi & Karno Singh Munda assaulted by back portion of a spade causing injuries of his person by which her husband fell unconscious, people arrived there and with their help, her husband was brought to her (the informant) house and after some time he died. 7. On the basis of said fardbeyan a case u/s 302/34 IPC was registered at the Tamar P.S. and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under same section and cognizance of the case was taken by the then ACJM, Khunti and case was committed to the court of sessions. Additional Judicial Commissioner Khunti has framed charge on 30.05.2002 under sections 302/34 of IPC. The learned trial court after conducting the trial, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal. 8. Heard Mrs. Nivedita Kundu, learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Prabir Chatterjee, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State. Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant- 9. Learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence was erroneous in law as well as on facts and circumstances of this case and learned trial court failed to appreciate the evidence that the informant PW – 1 was not at the spot at the time of alleged commission of assault by the appellant as she had not stated in her fardbayan that she was in company of her husband at the time of commission of the offence. It has further been pointed out that the alleged occurrence has taken place in the broad day light, but no independent witness has been examined on behalf of the prosecution for the reason best known to them. It has also been pointed out that the learned trial court has failed to consider the inquest report prepared by the police, which does not indicate that the clothes worn by the deceased were full of mud, and there had altercation between the deceased and the accused persons, which was not considered by the learned trail court and further it has been stated that the appellant has already served the substantive period of sentence from 20.07.2001 to 19.06.2006, almost four years and 11 months and the sentence of the imprisonment awarded by the learned court below is six years and therefore in this view of the matter, it is submitted that the impugned judgment is fit to be set-aside. Arguments advanced on behalf of the State- 10. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the learned defence counsel for the appellant. It has been argued that PWs.1, 2, 3 and PW – 9 are the eyewitnesses, who have supported the case of prosecution that the deceased, being the husband of the informant Bhuta Munda @ Bhuta Singh Munda, has been brutally assaulted and killed by the appellant (including deceased appellant) by means of lathi and Kudali and this has been supported by the doctor, who has been examined as PW - 8 and therefore the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences and passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be dismissed being devoid of merit. Appraisal & Findings 11. Having heard learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties, perused the records including the lower court records. 12. It is found that in order to substantiate the case of prosecution, altogether nine witnesses have examined, who are PW – 1 Sukru Devi, PW – 2 Murali Dhar Singh Munda, PW – 3 Narayan Singh Munda, PW – 4 Ranjit Singh Munda, PW – 5 Pamchan Singh Munda, PW – 6 Vedanand Jha, PW – 7 Shamim Ahmed Khan, PW – 8 Dr. Saroj Kumar and PW – 9 Bhim Singh Munda. Saroj Kumar and PW – 9 Bhim Singh Munda. Apart from oral evidences some documentary evidence has also been adduced on behalf of the prosecution, which are- Ext.1 - Fardbeyan Ext.2 - Formal FIR Ext. 3 - Case Diary Ext.4 - Post Mortem Report 13. PW – 1 Sukru Devi is the informant and wife of the deceased and she categorically stated in her deposition that the appellant had assaulted her husband from back portion of the kudali and lathi, upon which, she raised hulla and then the witnesses Ranjit Singh and other came there. She further stated that she took her husband to her house, where her husband died. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to disbelieve the version of this witness. 14. PW – 2 Murali Dhar Singh Munda stated that on the alleged time and date of occurrence, he was in the field, when the appellant had assaulted Bhuta Singh Munda who died of injuries inflicted upon him by the appellant. 15. PW – 3 Narayan Singh Munda stated that on the date and time of alleged occurrence, the appellant killed Bhuta Singh Munda by Kudali as there was a dispute between both the brothers for the agricultural field. 16. Two witness PW 4 Ranjit Singh Munda and PW – 5 Pamchan Singh Munda examined on behalf of the prosecution have been declared hostile. 17. PW – 6 Vedanand Jha is one of the I.Os of the case and he had stated that he took the charge of investigation of the case on 26.09.2001 from Shamim Ahmed Khan and he submitted the charge sheet in this case. The statement of the witnesses and the investigation of the case was done earlier by the previous I.O., who has been examined as PW – 7. 18. PW – 7 Shamim Ahmed Khan, the I.O. in this case stated that he recorded the fardbayan of Sukru Mundain on 13.07.2001, which is Ext.-1 and he had also proved the formal FIR, which is Ext. - 2. He inspected the P.O. and prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem to the doctor, which is marked as Ext. 4 and on his transfer, he handed over the charge of investigation to Vedanand Jha P.W.6. - 2. He inspected the P.O. and prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem to the doctor, which is marked as Ext. 4 and on his transfer, he handed over the charge of investigation to Vedanand Jha P.W.6. He stated in the examination-in-chief that there was a sign of alleged marpit found in the said field (place of occurrence). 19. PW – 8 Dr. Saroj Kumar stated that on 14.07.2001, he did post mortem examination of the dead body of Bhuta Singh Munda and found the following injuries:- "(i) Lacerated wounds 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left check upper part near left eye orbit with fracture of the left maxilla bone underneath. (ii) Lacerated 3 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on left eyebrow with fracture of left frontal bone orbital part underneath. (iii) Lacerated 4 cm x 2 cm x bone deep on right parietal region of head with crack fractured under lime right parietal bone. (iv) Internal injury : There was contusion of brain with presence of subdural blood and blood clot over right side of brain." The doctor PW-8 categorically stated aforesaid injuries found by him on the body of the deceased are possible by the back portion of Kudal and Lathi and the injuries found above on the body of the diseased were sufficient to cause death. The post mortem report has been proved by this witness PW-8 which has been marked as exhibit 4. In the cross examination conducted on behalf of defence nothing could be elicited from the mouth of this witness PW 8 who had conducted the postmortem of the diseased to disbelieve his version that he died because of the injuries caused to him. 20. PW – 9 Bhim Singh Munda stated that on the alleged date at 8 AM, he was ploughing his field and on hulla, he saw that Lakhan and Karan were cutting layer/hotbed (aari) of the agriculture field and upon this the deceased had protested, then the accused appellant (including deceased appellant) assaulted him with Kudali and lathi and by which, the deceased became senseless and he was taken to the house and he also stated that the deceased had sustained injuries over his head and back. This witness has been cross-examined at length, but nothing has been taken out to disbelieve his version. This witness has been cross-examined at length, but nothing has been taken out to disbelieve his version. 21. Recapitulating the testimonies of the witnesses and evidences available on record as evaluated in foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution including PWs 1, 2, 3 and PW 9 have supported the case of the prosecution consistently and uniformly being the eyewitnesses and this accused Lakhan Singh Munda along with the deceased appellant Karan Singh Munda had assaulted by lathi and kudali to the deceased, by which, he sustained injuries and lastly succumbed to the injuries. The doctor PW – 8 examined on behalf of the prosecution have supported the case of prosecution by finding the injuries on the deceased and same is falling in line with the depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. Thus the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant (Lakhan Singh Munda) along with the deceased appellant Karan @ Karno Singh Munda had killed the deceased Bhuta Singh Munda and the incident took place because of certain provocation on the dispute of the landed property between the deceased and the appellant (including deceased appellant) and therefore it is found that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidences under the facts and circumstances of the case and convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC but did not specify as to whether under Section 304 part I of IPC or under section 304 Part II of IPC but under circumstances of the case, this Court found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 304 part II of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. Resultantly this Court upholds the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 part II of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 22. Resultantly this Court upholds the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 304 part II of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC. 22. On the point of sentence, the learned defence counsel submitted that over a period of time, this appellant has become very old being father of the deceased appellant Karno Singh Munda and it is stated that he already spent about four years eleven months in custody and there is nothing on record about his criminal history and the appellant has been suffering with the hardship and miseries of criminal prosecution for a long period of time since 2001 and during this period he has lost his son Karn Singh Munda (co-appellant) therefore it is urged on behalf of the appellant a lenient view may be taken. 23. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and under the facts of this case, it is found just and appropriate that the ends of justice would be served when the appellant is awarded the sentence of imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by him instead of sending him again in jail. 24. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded the sentence of imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by him in custody. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bond. 25. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed as above. 26. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back forthwith to the concerned court below.