Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2043 (JHR)

Mannu Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2025-10-14

PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. We have already heard the arguments of Mr. Peeyush Krishna Choudhary, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Lily Sahay, learned counsel for the State. 2. It is to be mentioned at the very outset that the present appeal was originally filed by four accused persons, out of them, the appellant No.4, Saukhi Rai has been died and his appeal has been abated vide order dated 30.07.2025. This appeal is now heard on behalf of the appellant Nos.1 to 3. 3. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above appellants for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.10.2002 passed by learned 4th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka in S.C. No.157 of 1990, whereby and whereunder the appellant, Uggan Rai has been held guilty for the offences under sections 147 and 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 of IPC and R.I for one year for the offence under section 147 of IPC. Appellants, Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai and Saukhi Rai(since deceased) have been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. The convicts, Lakhi Rai and Saukhi Rai (since deceased) were also held guilty for the offence under section 323 of IPC for causing simple hurt to Nakul Rai(P.W.11) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Factual Matrix:- 4. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.08.1986 at about 5:30 pm, the father-in-law of the informant, namely Jharil Rai (since deceased) together with Ram Prasad Rai were sitting in the Varandah of Village Pradhan, Roshan Rai and chatting each other. It is further alleged that the informant also went there and saw Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai, Uggan Rai and Saukhi Rai (since deceased) came there armed with lathi and started assaulting his father-in-law. It is further alleged that when the informant went to rescue his father-in- law then he was also assaulted by the accused, Saukhi Rai and Lakhi Rai with lathi. It is further alleged that Uggan Rai inflicted lathi blow on the head of his father-in-law, due to which he became unconscious and fell down. It is further alleged that when the informant went to rescue his father-in- law then he was also assaulted by the accused, Saukhi Rai and Lakhi Rai with lathi. It is further alleged that Uggan Rai inflicted lathi blow on the head of his father-in-law, due to which he became unconscious and fell down. Then hearing hulla, the villagers, Ram Kishun Rai and Ram Prasad Rai arrived there to rescue the father-in-law of the informant, then they were also assaulted by Sahadev Rai(now deceased) and Jailal Rai. The injured persons were brought to Primary Health Center, Karbindha but Jharil Rai died in course of treatment. The motive behind the occurrence is alleged to be land dispute between the parties. On the basis of above information, FIR being Ramgarh P.S. Case No.39 of 1986 was registered against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 147, 323 and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where S.C. No.157 of 1990 was registered. The accused persons have denied the charges leveled against them and claimed to be tried. After conclusion of trial, the impugned judgment and conviction and sentence of the appellants was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal. 5. In course of trial, altogether 17 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, namely:- P.W.1-Ram Prasad Rai P.W.2- Manbharan Manjhi P.W.3-Ram Kishun Rai P.W.4-Ramanand Jha P.W.5-Raushan Rai P.W.6-Dahru Rai P.W.7-Vishwanath Sah P.W.8-Phagu Koal P.W.9- Surji Devi P.W.10-Ucchedi Devi P.W.11-Nakul Rai(informant) P.W.12-Jhaksi Ghatawalin(wife of deceased) P.W.13-Savitri Ghatawalin(wife of informant) P.W.14-Md. Hanif P.W.15-Dr. Lakshmi Narayan Mandal P.W.16-Dr. Binod Kumar Sahai P.W.17-Md. Aehsan 6. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has been adduced:- Ext. 1- Signature of Nakul Rai on the fardbayan Ext.2.- Charge-sheet submitted by I.O. Ext.3- Post-mortem report. Ext.4- Medical examination report of Nakul Rai Ext.5.- Endorsement on Fardbayan Ext.6.-Signature of officer-in-charge on F.I.R. Ext.7.-Inquest report Ext.8-Para Nos.1 to 72 of case diary of Ramgarh P.S. Case No.39 of 1986. 7. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. However, following documents have been adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext.A- C.C. of Parcha of Mouza-Kushmaha-52 – 7 sheets EXt.B- C.C. of order of Honorable Commissioner S.P. Division, Dumka in Rev. 7. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence. However, following documents have been adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext.A- C.C. of Parcha of Mouza-Kushmaha-52 – 7 sheets EXt.B- C.C. of order of Honorable Commissioner S.P. Division, Dumka in Rev. Case No.16 of 1988-89 Ext.C- C.C. of enquiry report of charge officer II in S.C. Case No.37 of 1993 Ext.D- C.C. of Judgment dated 13.12.1994 of Sri. A.K. Mishra, J.M, 1st Class, Dumka in T.R. No.561 of 1994(G.R. No.685 of 1990) Ext.E- C.C. of order of 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dumka in Cr. Rev. No.302 of 1989 Ext.F- C.C. of order of Sri. R.K. Bhagat Ext. Magistrate in T.R. No.35 of 1989- 3 sheets. Ext.G- C.C. of Judgment of Shree S.N. Sinha Munsif, Magistrate, 1st Class in T.R. No.26 of 1961-- 5 sheets Ext.H to Ext.H/2- C.C. of Depositions of the court of Sri. R.K. Bhagat, Ex. Magistrate, Dumka in T.R. No.35 of 1989 of Sri Raushan Rai, Dharu Rai, Manbharan Mandal - 9 sheets. Ext.I- C.C. of Purcha Mauza Jhunshi Submission on behalf of the Appellant:- 8. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellant Nos.1 and 2 have simply been held guilty for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of IPC. However, the appellant No.3 has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 302 of IPC. From the evidence of witnesses examined by the prosecution, it appears that a single lathi blow was given by the appellant No.3 on the head of the deceased in course of scuffle between the parties due to land dispute. There was no repetition of blow by the appellant No.3 to the deceased and the injury sustained by the deceased on head does not disclose to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and no such opinion has been assigned by the conducting doctor (P.W.15). It is further submitted that the appellant No.1, Mannu Rai has been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC only at the time of hearing on the point of sentence before the learned trial court, it was argued on his behalf that it was his first offence and he has no previous conviction for any other offence. It is further submitted that the appellant No.1, Mannu Rai has been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC only at the time of hearing on the point of sentence before the learned trial court, it was argued on his behalf that it was his first offence and he has no previous conviction for any other offence. Therefore, the convict deserves the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act under section 3/4, which has not been acceded by learned trial court without recording any special reasons as required under law. It is further argued that appellant No.2, Lakhi Rai has been held guilty for the offences under sections 147 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for each of the above offences. He has also not been granted the benefit of provisions of Probation of Offenders Act even being first offender without recording any special reasons for denying such benefit to him by learned trial court. Moreover, more than two decades have been elapsed and during course of trial, the appellant Nos.1 and 2 have remained in custody for about six months and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. So far the conviction of the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai for offence under section 302 of IPC is concerned, in the facts and circumstances proved by the prosecution, the required intention and knowledge to constitute the offence of murder is absolutely lacking in this case rather there appear the ingredients of culpable homicide not amounting to murder as defined under section 299 of IPC. Therefore, the offence committed by Uggan Rai comes under section 304 part (II) of IPC. Submission on behalf of State:- 9. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State controverting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants has submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellants. There is no substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants and no merits in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 10. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. Analysis, Reasons and Decision:- 10. We have gone through the record of the case along with impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellants in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side. 11. For better appreciation of this case, it is here pertinent to briefly discuss the evidence led by the prosecution. Out of 17 witnesses examined by the prosecution, it appears that the main witness of this case is the injured person-cum-informant, Nakul Rai, who has been examined as P.W.11. According to his evidence, he has corroborated the content of his fardbayan and stated that while his father-in-law, Jharil Rai and Ram Prasad Rai were sitting in varandah at the house of Village Pradhan, Raushan Rai and were talking. Meanwhile, Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai, Saukhi Rai and Uggan Rai armed with lathi came there and started assaulting his father- in-law. He went for rescuing then Uggan Rai inflicted lathi blow on the head of his father-in-law due to which he fell down and became unconscious and during course of treatment, he died in hospital. He has also stated about land dispute between Mannu Rai and his father-in-law, Jharil Rai. P.W.1-Ram Prasad Rai has claimed to see the accused persons, Munnu Rai, Uggan Rai, Lakhi Rai, Saukhi Rai, Sahdeo Rai, Jailal Rai and Kundru forming an unlawful assembly were assaulting Jharil Rai by lathi. Jharil Rai fell down due to lathi blow given by Uggan Rai and died. P.W.2-Manbharan Manjhi has also seen the occurrence of assault in between the accused persons and Jharil Rai but when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw Jharil Rai was lying unconscious on earth sustaining injuries. He has further stated that Ram Kishun Rai(P.W.3) and Nakul Rai(P.W.11) were also injured. The accused persons had already fled away from the place of occurrence by that time. P.W.3-Ram Kishun Rai (injured) has also claimed to have seen the occurrence, wherein Jharil Rai was assaulted by Uggan Rai with lathi and when he went to rescue Jharil Rai, he was also assaulted by Sahdeo Rai, Jailal Rai and Kandru Rai. He has further deposed that the accused persons have also assaulted Ram Prasad Rai and Nakul Rai as a result of which they sustained injuries. He has further deposed that the accused persons have also assaulted Ram Prasad Rai and Nakul Rai as a result of which they sustained injuries. During treatment, Jharil Rai died and inquest report was prepared in his presence and as a witness, he has also put his thumb impression on the inquest report. P.W.4-Ramanand Jha is a staff of Primary Health Centre, Karbindha where the injured Jharil Rai was brought under unconscious state, hence this witness sent him to Ramgarh Hospital. P.W.5-Raushan Rai. According to his evidence, when he returned to his house in the evening after grazing cattles, he saw Jharil Rai and Nakul Rai in injured condition, then they were brought to Karbhindha hospital for treatment. P.W.6-Dahru Rai has also seen Jharil Rai lying in unconscious condition after sustaining injuries. He came to know from the wife of the deceased, Jharil Rai about the occurrence and he is a hearsay witness. P.W.7-Bishwanath Sah has seen the accused, Mannu Rai, Sokhi Rai, Lakhi Rai and Uggan Rai fleeing away from the place of occurrence after assaulting the Jharil Rai, Ram Prasad Rai, Nakul Rai and Ram Kishun Rai. P.W.8-Phagu Koal has also claimed to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. He heard hullah coming from the house of Pradhan Ji, then he went there and saw that Uggan Rai gave lathi blow on head of Jharil Rai and other co-accused Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai, Saukhi Rai, Jaylal Rai and Kandru Rai also assaulted Jharil Rai due to which he fell down and became unconscious. He has further stated that Ram Prasad Rai, Nakul Rai and Kishun Rai were also assaulted by the accused persons in course of rescuing Jharil Rai. Jharil Rai died in course of treatment in the hospital. P.W.9-Surji Devi, after hearing hulla, came out from the house and saw that Jharil Rai was assaulted by Ugaan Rai on his head due to which he fell down and other accused persons, namely Saukhi Rai, Lakhi Rai all about seven in persons also assaulted Ram Prasad Rai, Ram Kishun Rai. Jharil Rai died in hospital during treatment. P.W.10-Uchhedi Koal arrived after the occurrence and saw that Jharil Rai was lying unconscious in injured condition and also saw Ram Prasad Rai, Nakul Rai and Ram Kishun Rai sustaining injuries. Jharil Rai has died in course of treatment in the hospital. P.W.12-Jhaksi Ghatwalin is the wife of the deceased. Jharil Rai died in hospital during treatment. P.W.10-Uchhedi Koal arrived after the occurrence and saw that Jharil Rai was lying unconscious in injured condition and also saw Ram Prasad Rai, Nakul Rai and Ram Kishun Rai sustaining injuries. Jharil Rai has died in course of treatment in the hospital. P.W.12-Jhaksi Ghatwalin is the wife of the deceased. She was also present at the house of Pradhan Ji along with her husband and other persons and they were talking with each other. In the meantime, Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai, Uggan Rai, Jailal Rai, Sahdeo Rai and Kundru Rai bearing lathi in their hands came there and started disputing about the house belonging to Jharil Rai and then her husband was dragged by the accused person towards Kulhi where Uggan Rai gave lathi blow upon head of her husband, due to which her husband fell down and became unconscious. Her son-in-law, Nakul Rai, Ram Prasad Rai and Ram Kishun Rai were also assaulted by the accused persons when they came to save her husband. Her husband died in the hospital during course of treatment. P.W.13- Savitri Ghatwalin is the wife of informant.She also corroborated the prosecution story as an eye-witness and has stated that she was present at the house of Pradhan Ji where her father Jharil Rai was assaulted by lathi on his head by Uggan Rai and other co-accused persons, Mannu Rai, Lakhi Rai, Saukhi Rai, Uggan Rai, Kandru Rai, Jailal Rai, Sahdeo Rai also assaulted her husband, Nakul Rai, Ram Prasad Rai, Ram Kishun Rai. Thereafter, the accused persons fled away and her father died during course of treatment. P.W.14-S.I. Md. Hanif is a partial investigating officer in this case and he has taken charge of investigation on 02.01.1989. After going through the previous case diary and investigation conducted by earlier investigating officer, Sudhanshu Jha, he submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons. P.W.15-Dr. Lakshmi Narayan Mandal has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jharil Rai, S/o Chandu Rai aged about 48 years and the body was identified by constable 21, Choudhary Prasad Singh and Chhoukidar 5/6 Ganesh Rai and found following injuries:- Ante-mortem injuries: (i) One lacerated wound over the vault of the skull obliquely placed size 2” x ¼” x bone deep. On dissection: (i) There was commuted fracture of skull bone. On dissection: (i) There was commuted fracture of skull bone. On further dissection the underneath brain and meninges were lacerated and filled with blood clots. The death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above injuries. In his cross-examination, he admits that the above injuries were possible by fall against a rock with considerable height with force. 12. P.W.16-Dr. Binod Kumar Sahai, on 01.09.1986 while he was posted at P.H.C. as a medical officer, has examined Nakul Rai and found lacerated would ½” x ¼” x 1/6” on occipital part of scalp/simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt substance. Age of injury was within 24 to 48 hours. The injury report of Nakul Rai was marked as Ext.1. P.W.17-Mohammad Aehsaan is a clerk of Public Prosecutor, who has proved the handwriting and signature of S.I. Sudhanshu Jha, who scribed the fardbayan as Ext.5. The then S.I. Sudhanshu Jha has been died. He has further proved formal FIR in the writing and signature of the then officer-in- charge, Ramgarh Police Station marked as Ext.6 and he has also proved the carbon copy of inquest report of the deceased (Ext.7) and further case diary from para 1 to 72 in the handwriting of Sudhansu Jha is marked as Ext.8. 13. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall aspects of the case as flashed by the eye-witnesses in the course of trial. We find that there is allegation of single lathi blow on head of the deceased against the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai, which resulted in the death of the deceased. Other appellants have simply assisted by their presence on the spot armed with lathi The deceased has also sustained only one injury i.e. lacerated wound over the vault of the skull obliquely placed size 2” x ¼” x bone deep caused by the appellant, Uggan Rai, which has consistently been proved by the prosecution witness. No other injury has been found as per post-mortem report of the deceased. The informant, Nakul Rai has also sustained simple injuries caused by lathi at the instance of the appellants, Lakhi Rai and Saukhi Rai(since deceased). Appellant No.1, Mannu Rai has been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC and no other specific role has been attributed against him. The informant, Nakul Rai has also sustained simple injuries caused by lathi at the instance of the appellants, Lakhi Rai and Saukhi Rai(since deceased). Appellant No.1, Mannu Rai has been held guilty for the offence under section 147 of IPC and no other specific role has been attributed against him. The genesis, manner and actual force of assault clearly goes to show that there was no premeditation or any pre-plan of accused persons to cause death of the deceased rather at the time of scuffle, the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai got excited and gave lathi blow on head without intending to cause death of the deceased due to which he fell down and succumbed to injuries. Therefore, conviction of the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai for the offence under section 302 of IPC is not warranted under law rather this case falls under section 304 part II of IPC and appellant No.3, Uggan Rai is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also in view of the fact that the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai has faced the agony of trial since more than two decades and family of both side now settled their normal life and no further involvement in any other criminal activities, appellant No.3, Uggan Rai is sentenced to R.I. for 7 years for the offence under section 304 Part II of IPC. Accordingly, the appeal of appellant No.3, Uggan Rai is dismissed on merits with modification/alteration in conviction and sentence to the extent mentioned above. 15. So far, the conviction of appellant Nos.1 and 2, Mannu Rai and Lakhi Rai respectively is concerned, they have been held guilty for the offences under section 147 and 323 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for one year and they have undergone some period of imprisonment during trial of the case. Therefore, considering their role in the entire episode, their conviction is maintained but sentence is reduced to the imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, their appeal is also dismissed on merits with modification/alteration in sentence. 16. The appellant Nos.1 and 2, Mannu Rai and Lakhi Rai respectively are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 17. Accordingly, their appeal is also dismissed on merits with modification/alteration in sentence. 16. The appellant Nos.1 and 2, Mannu Rai and Lakhi Rai respectively are on bail, hence, they are discharged from liability of bail bonds. The sureties are also discharged. 17. Appellant No.3, Uggan Rai is directed to surrender before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment to undergo his remaining period of sentence of imprisonment as awarded to him in this appeal. The period of imprisonment already undergone by him during trial shall be set off from the sustentative sentence of imprisonment of 7 years awarded to him. 18. In case, the appellant No.3, Uggan Rai does not surrender within aforesaid stipulated time, learned trial court shall take all coercive steps for his arrest and detention to suffer the aforesaid sentence. 19. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly. 20. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Records be sent back to the concerned trial court for information and needful.