Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1772 (JHR)

Mahangi Turi v. State of Jharkhand

2025-08-26

SANJAY PRASAD

body2025
JUDGMENT : SANJAY PRASAD, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by Ms. Babita Prasad, then, learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara in connection with Sessions Case No. 125 of 2005/02 of 1992 by which, the appellant has been convicted for the charges punishable for the offences under Sections 324 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and had been sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of three (3) years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and has further been sentenced to undergo S. I. for a period of one (1) month for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code . All the sentences have been directed to be run concurrently. However, learned Trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code . 2. On the basis of fardbeyan of one Dablu Murmu, which was recorded at Sub-Divisional Hospital, Jamtara, the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 08.08.1991 at 7.30 hours while the Informant was in his house the present accused Mahangi Turi came to him and on his request, the Informant went alongwith him. When they reached near the house of one Shanti Mondal, one Mansa Mondal also came to them and both Mansa Mondal and Mahangi Turi asked him to carry some door frames and planks to Majhaladdih and when the Informant refused to do so, Mahangi Turi caught him and Mansa Mondal stabbed him with knife with an intention to kill him. The Informant, however, ran away from there and other persons brought him to his house. Accordingly, the case was instituted. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and leaned counsel for the State. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not arguing on the merits of this case. It is submitted that the bail of the appellant has been cancelled by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) of this Court on 06.12.2024. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that he is not arguing on the merits of this case. It is submitted that the bail of the appellant has been cancelled by the Co-ordinate Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Srivastava) of this Court on 06.12.2024. It is submitted that the allegation of assault merely against the co-accused Mansha Mondal and no specific overt act is attributed against the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has face long protracted trial for more than 20 years. It is submitted that during trial the appellant was in custody from 09.06.1991 to 28.08.1991 i.e for 23 days. It is submitted that after cancellation of his bail by this Court, the appellant is in custody since 07.03.2025 till date i.e. for around five and half months and as such, lenient view may be taken against the appellant on the point of sentence and this Criminal Appeal may be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by the learned Court below is fit and proper and no inference is required from this Court. It is submitted that the appellant is named in the FIR for assaulting the Informant. It is submitted that several eye witnesses have supported the occurrence and have named the appellant alongwith Mansa Mondal for assaulting the Informant and hence, no lenient view can be taken in favour of the appellant and as such, judgment of conviction and sentence may be upheld and this Criminal Appeal may be dismissed. 6. Perused the Lower Court Records and considered the submissions of both the sides. 7. It transpires that FIR was lodged by the Informant–Dablu Murmu on 08.08.1991 that when the Informant was in his house the present accused Mahangi Turi came to him and on his request, the Informant went alongwith him. However, when they reached near the house of one Shanti Mondal, one Mansa Mondal also came to them and both Mansa Mondal and Mahangi Turi asked him to carry some door frames and planks to Majhaladdih and when the Informant refused to do so, Mahangi Turi caught him and Mansa Mondal stabbed him with knife with an intention to kill him. The Informant, however, ran away from there and other persons brought him to his house. 8. The Informant, however, ran away from there and other persons brought him to his house. 8. On the basis of fardbeyan of Dablu Murmu i.e. the informant, the police had instituted Jamtara P. S. Case No. 128 of 1991 on 08.08.1991 for the offences under Sections 341 /324/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons. 9. The police, after completing investigation, had submitted charge sheet for the offences under Sections 341 /324/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and the other accused person Mansa Mondal on 10.09.1991 and learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara had taken cognizance on 19.09.1991 against the appellant and one other under Sections 341 /324/326/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code . 10. After supplying the police paper to the accused persons, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charges were framed against the appellant-Mahangi Turi on 27.04.2004 under Sections 341 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 11. It transpires that during trial the prosecution got examined seven (7) witnesses, who are as follows: (i) PW-1 is Geeta Devi (i.e. the wife of the informant), (ii) P.W.-2 is Nirmala Murmu, i.e. Maid Servant, (iii) P.W.-3 is Robert Murmu, (iv) P.W.-4 is Dakhi Murmu, i.e. Son of P.W.-3, (v) P.W.-5 is Hiralal Mohali, (vi) P.W.-6 is Ashok Kumar Chandra i.e. Clerk at S. D. Hospital (vii) P.W.-7 is Md. Tahir Hussain i.e. Advocate Clerk 12. The prosecution got exhibited following documents, which are as follows:- (i) Ext.-1 is Carbon Copy of the Injury Report of the Informant i.e. Dablu Murmu (on page- 34 of the Injury Register), (ii) Ext.-2 is Fardbeyan and (iii) Ext.-3 is Signature of J. B. Choudhary, S. I. on formal FIR. 13. It transpires that the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. on 06.10.2007 by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara and the appellant has denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. The Defence, in support of his case, neither examined any witnesses nor any document has been marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the appellant. 15. P. C. on 06.10.2007 by the learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Jamtara and the appellant has denied the circumstances put forth before him. 14. The Defence, in support of his case, neither examined any witnesses nor any document has been marked as the Exhibit on behalf of the appellant. 15. Thereafter the learned Court below has convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for a period of three (3) years for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo SI for one month for the offence under Section 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 16. From perusal of the FIR, it would appear that the allegation for assaulting the Informant-Dablu Murmu is upon Mansa Mandal, who has not been tried in this case. The appellant is alleged to have accompanied to him. 17. It appears from the record that the Investigating Officer i.e. I.O. of this case and the Doctor have not been examined in this case. 18. It further transpires that Informant- Dablu Murmu had also died. 19. It also appears that the other accused Mansa Mandal had also died during the pendency of the trial. 20. It transpires that in the Injury Report of injured informant- Dablu Murmu proved by P.W.-6, Ashok Kumar Chandra i.e. Clerk at S. D. Hospital and who is not competent to prove the Injury Report marked as Ext. -1. 21. It further reveals that P.W.-7, Md. Tahir Hussain i.e. Advocate Clerk and who had proved the fardbeyan and which has been marked as Ext.-2 and who was also not competent to prove the fardbeyan. 22. It further reveals that even the injured has not been examined in this case and informant had also died. 23. PW-1 is Geeta Devi (i.e. the wife of the informant), and has stated that her husband-Dablu Murmu was Informant of this case and he had already died. 22. It further reveals that even the injured has not been examined in this case and informant had also died. 23. PW-1 is Geeta Devi (i.e. the wife of the informant), and has stated that her husband-Dablu Murmu was Informant of this case and he had already died. The occurrence took place at around 7.00 PM in the mother of Bhado and at the time she was in her residence and while she was in her house, then she heard the noise of abuse and came outside and saw that her husband was in injured condition in the courtyard of Mahangi Turi and Mansa Mandal was assaulting her husband-Dablu Mandal. Thus, P.W.-1, Geeta Devi has supported the prosecution case. 24. P.W.-2 is Nirmala Murmu, i.e. Maid Servant, has stated that Mansa Mandal had died and Dablu Mandal had died one and half years ago. She claimed to have the accused person including the appellant fleeing away after assaulting the Informant. Thus, P.W.-2, Nirmala Murmu has also supported the prosecution case. 25. P.W.-3 is Robert Murmu, and who is a hearsay witness and learnt about the occurrence from his daughter i.e. P.W.-2, Nirmala Murmu. Thus, P.W.-3, Robert Murmu is a hearsay witness. 26. P.W.-4 is Dakhi Murmu, i.e. Son of P.W.-3 and who had also learnt about the occurrence from her sister Nirmala Murmu i.e. P.W.-2 and his father regarding assault made upon the Informant-Dablu Murmu and Mansa Mandal. He also stated that Informant –Dablu Murmu had died. Thus, P.W.-4, Dakhi Murmu is also a hearsay witness. 27. P.W.-5 is Hiralal Mohali and who has also stated that the appellant- Mahangi Turi came to the house of the Informant-Dablu Murmu and thereafter he slept. This P.W.-5, Hiralal Mohali had been declared hostile by the prosecution and hence, his evidence is not reliable. 28. P.W.-6 is Ashok Kumar Chandra i.e. Clerk at S. D. Hospital, who has merely proved the injury report of the injured- Dablu Murmu marked as Ext.-1 and who is not competent to prove the same. 29. P.W.-7 is Md. Tahir Hussain i.e. Advocate Clerk and is a formal witness and who has proved the fardbeyan i.e. Ext.-2 and signature on Fardbeyan as Ext.-3 of J. B. Choudhary. 30. Thus, in absence of the Informant (i.e. injured) and Doctor, injury found upon the Informant has not been proved. 29. P.W.-7 is Md. Tahir Hussain i.e. Advocate Clerk and is a formal witness and who has proved the fardbeyan i.e. Ext.-2 and signature on Fardbeyan as Ext.-3 of J. B. Choudhary. 30. Thus, in absence of the Informant (i.e. injured) and Doctor, injury found upon the Informant has not been proved. However, P.W.-1, Geeta Devi and P.W.-2, Nirmala Murmu are witnesses, who had stated that the co-accused Mansa Mandal (deceased) and the appellant - Mahangi Turi were fleeing away from the place of occurrence and the intestine of the Informant was visible due to assault. 31. Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conviction of the appellant – Mahangi Turi for the offences under Sections 324 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the learned Trial Court is upheld. However, the sentence dated 19.12.2007 passed by Miss Babita Prasad, then, learned 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara in connection with Sessions Case No. 125 of 2005/02 of 1992 is modified to the extent by directing that the period undergone by the appellant in jail till date i.e. 26.08.2025 shall be the period of sentence. 32. Since the appellant Mahangi Turi is in custody and he is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 33. With the above observations and directions, this Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 88 of 2008 is hereby allowed in part. 34. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Original Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Court below at once.