Meghu @ Meghnath Singh Mura & Ors vs State Of West Bengal
2022 Latest Caselaw 4754 Cal

Sl. No. 47




                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            APPELLATE SIDE

Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi

              And
The Hon'ble Justice Ananya Bandyopadhyay


                              C.R.A. 543 of 2016

                     Meghu @ Meghnath Singh Mura & Ors.
                                    -Vs-
                            State of West Bengal


For the Appellant        : Mr. Mainak Bakshi, Adv.


For the State            : Mr. Abhra Mukherjee, Adv.
                           Mr. Pinak Kr. Mitra, Adv.

Heard on                 : 11.07.2022 & 26.07.2022

Judgment on              : 26.07.2022


Joymalya Bagchi, J. :-

         Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.7.2016

and 21.7.2016 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge,

Fast Track 2nd Court, Purulia in Sessions Trial no. 05/13 arising out of

Sessions Case no. 73/13 convicting the appellants for commission of

offence punishable under Sections 148/149, 324/149, 307/149 and

302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to suffer simple

imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default,
                                     2




to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence

punishable under Section 148/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer

simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the

offence punishable under Section 324/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to

suffer imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under section

307/149 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for

life and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two years each for the offence punishable under Section

302/149 of the Indian Penal Code. All the sentences to run concurrently.

       The prosecution case as alleged against the appellants is to the

effect that on 03.01.2013 at 8 a.m. when one Keshab Kuiry and his two

sons Dhrubeswar Kuiry and Prakash Kuiry were ploughing the land in plot

no. 1397, the appellants being armed with axe, tabla, lathi and spade

attacked them. Meghnath Mura and Narayan Mura @ Naran hit

Dhrubeswar Kuiry on his head with axe and tabla. He fell down with

bleeding injuries. Gurupada Mura, Jugal Mura and Rohin Mura hit

Prakash on his head with axe and tabla in order to kill him. Appellants

also chased the de facto complainant Monohar Kuiry and others.

Dhrubeswar and Prakash were taken to Bagmundi Hospital and thereafter

to Ranchi Hospital. On the written complaint of Monohar Kuiriya relation

of Prakash and Dhrubeswar, Bagmundi PS case no. 1 of 3013 dated

3.1.2013

under sections 147/148/149/324/326/307 IPC was registered.

On the next day i.e. 4.1.2013 Dhrubeswar died and section 302 IPC was

added. In the course of investigation axe was recovered from the house of

Gurupada, one kural was recovered from Banesawar Singh Mora @ Banu

and a tabla was seized from Narayan @ Naran Singh Mora.

In conclusion of investigation charge sheet was filed against the

appellants and charges were framed under sections 148/149, 324/149,

326/149, 307/149, 302/149, 307/34 and 302/34 IPC. Appellants pleaded

not guilty and claimed to be tried. In the course of trial prosecution

examined 14 witnesses and exhibited a number of documents. Defence of

the appellants was one of innocence and false implication. In conclusion of

trial, learned trial judge by judgment and order dated 16.7.2016 and

21.7.2016 convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Hence, the

present appeal.

Mr. Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits

genesis of the prosecution case is founded on falsehood. Investigating

officer PW14 stated the accused persons were in possession of land in

question. Hence, Keshab Kuiry (PW5) and his sons Prakash and

Dhrubeswar could not have cultivated the land. Deceased and his family

members had trespassed on the land and appellants resisted them. Hence,

it cannot be said that appellants formed an unlawful assembly to commit

the murder. It is further argued no overt act is attributable to Rameswar

Mura, Baneswar Mura, Bisamber Mura, Shyamal Mura and Ghasi Mura.

Although it is alleged Megha and Naran assaulted the deceased with kural

and table, post mortem doctor PW12 opined injuries were caused by hard

and blunt substance. Allegation of assault by Gurupada, Rohin and Jugal

on Prakash is also improbable as a single injury was found on the head of

the said victim. Prosecution case suffers from various infirmities and ought

not to be believed. Hence, appellants are entitled to an order of acquittal.

Mr. Mukheree and Mr. Mitra for the State submits PW1 to 6 are the

eye-witnesses. They deposed appellants came to the spot with arms. They

told Dhrubeswar and Prakash who were cultivating the land, to stop

cultivation else they would be murdered. Thereafter, Megha and Naran

assaulted Dhrubeswar on the head. Gurupada, Jugal and Rohin also

assaulted Prakash on the head. Ocular version of the witnesses is

corroborated by the medical evidence of post mortem doctor PW12 as well

as PWs9 and 13 who treated Prakash. Hence, the prosecution case is

proved beyond reasonable doubt.

PW1 Monohar is the complainant. He deposed on 3.1.2013 at 8 a.m

Keshab and his two sons Dhrubeswar and Prakash were ploughing plot no.

1397. Megha and Naran assauled Dhrubeswar on the head with kural and

tabla respectively. Dhrubeswar fell down on the ground. Gurupada, Rohin

and Jugal assaulted Prakash with kural, kodal and tabla on his head. He

also fell on the ground. Victims were recovered to Bagmundi Hospital and

thereafter to Ranchi Hospital. He lodged written complaint (Ext 1). On

4.1.2013 Dhrubeswar died in the hospital. Police seized blood stained

earth from the place of occurrence. He signed on the seizure list. Police

also seized a kural from the house of Gurupada. He signed on the seizure

list. In cross examination, he admitted that he did not cultivate the land in

question.

PW2 Dwariknath Kuiry deposed on 3.1.2013 the appellants had

came to the land and directed Prakash to stop ploughing. As a result

Prakash stopped ploughing and came down from tractor. They also

threatened Prakash that they would kill them. Thereafter Megha assaulted

Dhrubeswar on the head. Gurupada, Jugal and Rohin assaulted Prakash

with tabla, kural and lathi on head. Injured were taken to hospital and

Dhrubeswar died. On 21.1.2013 he witnessed the recovery of one kural

from the house of Gurupada. He signed on the seizure list. In cross

examination he stated to police that accused persons did not allow them to

cultivate the plot. They were forcibly cultivating the plots which were not

standing in their name.

PW3 Budheswar Kuiry deposed in similar lines with regard to

assault on Dhrubeswar and Prakash. He further stated other persons

attacked him. In cross examination he stated that he was ploughing his

land in plot no. 1397.

PW4 Prakash Kuiry is the injured witness. He deposed on 3.1.2013

at 8 a.m he was ploughing plot no. 1397. His father Keshab and brother

Dhrubeswar were present. Accused persons with lathi, tabla, kural and

kodal told them to stop ploughing and threatened to kill them. Thereafter

Megha, Naran and Gurupada assaulted Dhrubeswar on head with kural

and table. Jugal and Rahin assaulted him with tabla on his head and left

leg. He became unconscious. He was admitted to Apollo Hospital for 15/20

days. His brother expired at Apollo Hospital.

PW 5 Keshab Kuiry is the father of the deceased Dhrubeswar. He

deposed the appellants had come to the spot with various arms and told

them to remove the tractor, otherwise they would kill them. Megha and

Naran gave a blow on his elder son by a kural and tabla. Gurupada, Rohin

and Jugal gave a blow to his younger son's head and left leg with kural.

His nephew Arjun and others were also present. Other accused persons

chased Arjun. Villagers came to the spot and they fled away. He was

present at the time of recovery of kural from the house of Gurupada. He is

a signatory to the seizure list. Arjun has corroborated the evidence of other

witnesses. In addition, he stated that other accused persons tried to kill

them.

PW7 Khetu Kuiry is the father in law of Dhrubeswar. He is a post

occurrence witness. He signed on the inquest report prepared in the

hospital over the dead body of Dhrubeswar.

PW8 Sunil Mondal is a constable attached to Bagmundih P.S at the

time of occurrence. He was present at the time of seizure of kural from the

house of Gurupada. He deposed Gurupada had brought out a kural from

his house which was seized. He proved his signature on the seizure list.

PW11 Gopal Kaibarta is another constable who was present at the

time of recovery of kural. He proved his signature on the seizure list.

PW10 Soumen Das is a constable who was present at the time of

recovery of kural on the showing of Baneswar Singh Mura and a tabla on

the showing of Narayan Singh. He proved his signatures on the seizure

lists.

PWs9, 12 and 13 are the medical witnesses.

PW9 Dr. Rohan Pal was posted at Pathardih BPHC at the time of

occurrence. He examined Prakash. He found an incised wound on his

frontal head measuring about 4 cm X .5 cm X 2 cm., blood was oozing from

wound, tenderness over the left knee region. He also examined

Dhrubeswar and found incised wound over occipital region of head

measuring about 9 cm X .5 cm X 2.5 cm and found active bleeding from

the wound. He also noted an incised wound over upper part of forehead

measuring about 5 cm X .5 cm X 2 cm. He proved injury reports Exts 7

and 8.

PW13 Dr. N.A.M. Ali examined Prakash at Apollo Hospital, Ranchi.

He found lacerated wound on the scalp 1 inch long which was stitched. He

stated that wound was simple. He proved the medical report (Ext 6/1).

PW 12 Dr. Monaj Kumar Korah is the post mortem doctor who

conducted post mortem over the dead body of Dhrubeswar. He found the

following injuries :

Lacerated wound (1) 3 cm X ½ cm soft tissue, right occipital region,

right occipital skull (2) 3 cm X ½ cm X bone deep right parietral region

lacerated stitch wound (1) 3 cm X ½ cm soft tissue X 2 stitch front of right

forehead.

Internal injuries- defused contusion of whole skull and both

temporal muscle and depressed fracture 7 cm X 4 cm Right parietal bone.

Extradural blood and blood clot 10 cm X 5 cm left tempro parietal region

contusion of brain, presence of subdural blood and blood clots of whole

brain. Internal organs are pale.

He opined as follows:-

(1) The above noted injuries are ante mortem in nature (2) caused

by hard and blunt substances (3) death is due to head injury (4) time of

death:- 6 hours to 24 hours from the time of post mortem examination.

He proved post mortem report (Ext 11). In cross examination, he

stated that injuries were caused by any blunt and hard substance.

PW14 Abhijit Singha is the investigating officer. He deposed the then

OC received a written complaint from Monohar Kuiry and drew up formal

FIR. Investigation was entrusted to him. He went to place of occurrence,

prepared rough sketch map (Ext 13). He examined the witnesses. On

3.1.2013 he seized one kural, two tablas, two spades, three lathis, blood

stained earth and control earth from the place of occurrence. He proved the

seizure list (Ext 2/1). On 10.1.2013 he arrested Meghnath Singh Mura,

Baneswar Singh Mura and Naran Singh Mura. He seized one kural form

Baneswar @ Banu Singh Mura and one tabla from Narayan @ Naran Singh

Mura. On 21.1.2013 he seized one kural from Gurupada Mura under

seizure list Ext 4/5. He submitted charge sheet.

Assessing the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that the

incident occurred on 3.1.2013 around 8.00 A.M. in plot No.1397. In the

FIR, PW1 stated he was ploughing the land. However, during deposition he

claimed he did not plough the said land but Kesab Kuiry and his two sons

viz., Dhrubeswar Kuiry and Prakash Kuiry were ploughing the land.

However, Investigating Officer during cross-examination stated that the

accused persons were in possession of the land in question. PW2 admitted

that he stated to Investigating Officer that the accused persons were

forcibly occupying the land which was not owned by them. PW3 also stated

to Investigating Officer that they were not allowed to cultivate the land by

the accused persons.

In the light of the aforesaid evidence on record, it appears that Kesab

and his two sons were not in possession of the land but they had gone on

the fateful day to the land with a tractor to cultivate the same. This

infuriated the appellants who came to the spot and asked them to stop

ploughing. An altercation ensued whereupon Megha Singh Mura and

Naran Mura hit Dhrubeswar on the head with kural and tabla. It is alleged

Gurupada Singh Mura, Rahin Singh Mura and Yugal Singh Mura also

assaulted Prakash with tabla, kural, and lathi on his head. As a result of

the assault, Dhrubeswar suffered injuries and ultimately expired on the

next date. Prakash suffered a single injury on the head which is stated to

be simple. Investigating Officer seized blood stained earth, kural, lathi and

tabla from the place of occurrence. Ocular version of the eye witnesses viz.,

PWs.1 to 6 with regard to assault on Dhrubeswar by Megha and Naran is

corroborated by medical evidence of PW9, who treated the victim at

Pathardih BPHC and the post mortem doctor, PW12. PW9 found two

incised wounds on the upper part of forehead and occipital region. PW12

post mortem doctor found lacerated wounds on the right occipital region

and right forehead. He also found severe internal hemorrhage in the head.

Relying on the cross-examination of PW12 that the injuries were

caused by blunt and hard substance and not sharp cutting weapons, Mr.

Bakshi contends that such injuries could not be caused by kural or tabla.

I am unable to accept his contention. PW9 explained that incised

wounds may in some cases give impression of lacerated injuries. A conjoint

reading of the opinion of the medical witnesses, therefore, does not rule out

the possibility that the incised wounds which were found on the head of

the deceased at the first instance by PW9 were noted as lacerated wounds

during post mortem examination. This led post mortem doctor (PW12) to

opine that the injuries may have been caused by hard blunt substance.

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the opinion the medical evidence

does not wholly discredit the prosecution version that Meghu @ Meghnath

Singh Mura and Naran Mura @ Narayan Singh Mura had assaulted

Dhrubeswar on his head with axe and tabla resulting in his death.

However, assault by Gurupada, Yugal and Rahim with tabla, kural

and lathi on the head of Prakash appears to be an exaggeration. One inch

simple injury on the scalp and tenderness in leg were found by PWs.9 and

13 who treated Prakash.

In this backdrop, it appears that the eyewitnesses may have

exaggerated the nature of assault on Prakash Kuiry. Their version with

regard to continuous cultivation of the land also is not supported by the

investigating officer. If some parts of the evidence of a witness appears to

be false and unreliable, it is trite law the entire evidence of the said

witnesses shall not be thrown out. But the Court must weigh such

evidence with due care and circumspection and separate the grain from the

chaff. Shifting the ocular version of the eyewitnesses from that perspective,

I am of the opinion it is difficult to believe the prosecution case that Kesab

and his sons cultivating the land is plot No. 1397 for a long time and

appellants had come in a body to kill them if they did not stop cultivation.

On the other hand, it appears that the appellants were occupying the land

and were preventing Kesab and his sons to cultivate. When the latter

entered the land to cultivate on the fateful day, the appellants obstructed

and the incident occurred. As the deceased and his family members appear

to be the aggressors who entered the land which was in the possession of

the appellants, I am constrained to hold prosecution has failed to prove

appellants had formed an unlawful assembly and had come to the land

with the common object to commit murder. On the other hand, appellants

appear to have resisted Dhurbeshwar and his brother Prakash from

entering and cultivating the land which was in their possession. On doing

so, Meghnath Mura and Narayan Mura @ Naran assaulted

Dhrubeswar on the head and Gurupada Mora, Yugal Mura and Rohin

Mura assaulted Prakash. Under such circumstances, though the aforesaid

appellants may be liable for their individual/ conjoint acts but all the

appellants cannot be held to be members of unlawful assembly and made

liable for the criminal acts of another under section 149 IPC. That apart, no

specific overt act is attributed to the other appellants viz. Rameshwar Singh

Mura, Baneswar Singh Mura, Bisamber Singh Mura, Shyamal Singh Mura

and Ghasi Singh Mura. Stray sentences by some of the witnesses that

these appellants chased them is not supported by PWs.1 and 2.

In this backdrop, I am of the opinion prosecution has not been able

to prove that an unlawful assembly was formed to murder Dhrubeswar

Kuiry and attempt to murder Prakash Kuiry. Even with regard to the role of

Gurupada Singh Mura, Rahin Singh Mura and Yugal Singh Mura, in the

assault of Prakash Kuiry, I am of the opinion nature of injuries found on

Prakash i.e. a simple injury on scalp and tenderness on leg do not portend

to a sinister intention of attempting to murder him. Role of Meghu Mura

and Naran Mura, however, show the common intention to murder

Dhrubeswar. They had hit Dhrubeswar with kural and tabla on the head.

Ocular version of the witnesses is corroborated by the injuries found on the

body of the deceased as per PWs.9 and 12.

I am not impressed by the submission of Mr. Bakshi that the said

appellants have acted out of sudden and grave provocation as the victims

had entered to plough the land in their possession. Nothing has been

placed on record to show that they were lawful owners of the land. On the

other hand, evidence of PWs.2 and 3 give an impression that they were

illegally resisting the deceased and Prakash from cultivating the land.

In this backdrop, I am of the opinion their act does not fall within the

exceptions of Section 300 IPC and they are liable to be convicted under

Sections 302/34 IPC.

In the light of the aforesaid discussions, I acquit Rameshwar Singh

Mura, Baneswar Singh Mura, Bisamber Singh Mura, Shyamal Singh Mura

and Ghasi Singh Mura of the charges levelled against them.

With regard to Gurupada Singh Mura, Rahin Singh Mura and Yugal

Singh Mura, I acquit them of the charge under Sections 307/149 and

Sections 302/149 IPC. They are, however, convicted for the commission of

offence punishable under Section 148 IPC and Sections 324/34 IPC with

regard to assault on Prakash Kuiry. They are sentenced to suffer simple

imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in default,

to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the offence

punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to suffer

simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the

offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

With regard to Meghu @ Meghnath Singh Mura and Naran Mura @

Narayan Singh Mura, they are convicted for the offence punishable under

Section 148 IPC and Sections 302/34 IPC. They are sentenced to suffer

simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- each, in

default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months more for the

offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.3000/- each, in

default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years each for the offence

punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. All the

sentences to run concurrently.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

Appellants Gurupada Singh Mura, Rahin Singh Mura, Yugal Singh

Mura, Rameshwar Singh Mura, Baneswar Singh Mura, Bisamber Singh

Mura, Shyamal Singh Mura and Ghasi Singh Mura have served out the

sentences imposed on them.

Accordingly, appellants Gurupada Singh Mura, Rahin Singh Mura,

Yugal Singh Mura, Rameshwar Singh Mura, Baneswar Singh Mura,

Bisamber Singh Mura, Shyamal Singh Mura and Ghasi Singh Mura shall

be forthwith released from custody, if not wanted in any other case, upon

execution of a bond to the satisfaction of the trial court which shall remain

in force for a period of six months in terms of Section 437A of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

Period of detention suffered by the appellants viz. Meghu @

Meghnath Singh Mura and Naran Mura @ Narayan Singh Mura during

investigation, enquiry and trial shall be set off from the substantive

sentence imposed upon the appellants in terms of Section 428 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure.

Lower court records along with the copy of the judgment be sent

down at once to the learned trial Court for necessary action.

Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the

parties on priority basis, on compliance of all formalities.

I agree.

(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)                           (Joymalya Bagchi, J.)




tkm/as/akd/PA