Jharkhand High Court

Ps-Lalmatia vs Unknown on 22 February, 2021

 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Criminal Appellate Jurisrliction)
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.447 of 2011
Juciarrant pl

ay : .

4 Byyr Tyga

Fit, paessed by the
x
3

2k odda in So, Na, 2S8

 
 
 

of Seryherice, both

   

pe

Sor Seren, sfa-Darje Soren, resident of Babupur, PO and

PS-Lalmatia, District-Godde xos Appellant

Versys
The State of Jharkhand -» Respondent

 

(Heard thequeh YEo0 22°° Pebrus

 

in Shel char, Advocate
mf Kumar Mishra, APP

or the ae pellant Mr
Sor the State > Mr. Mar

 

Prees

ANS SAAS RN AAAS

gran Bebraary, =

Oral | Judgment

 

 

The sole appellant has b inital ard sentenced
to Ri for life ancl a fine of Rs. 2.Q00/s under section S02 of the
Indian Penal Code, with default stipule Hor, fo sutfer further
Nd for Qomenths.

e. In S.C. No 238 of 2008 corresponding to TR. No SO of

S010, the appellant has faesd the trial on the charge of

COVELL yal Murra in prosecution of cormon

 

mk

obect cf the umlawhul assembly. In Boartore (Lalmatiya) FA.
Case Noo of S006 which was lodged on 29.02 2008, Sor
Soren, the appellant, was an accused alongwith Sulal Hembram,

Bara Dugso Hembram, Dinibo Hernbrarn

of Ratal Murmi gave

 

aiiliegera Dako were ee
Wage Babupur on

 

% 3

ie yee

Wes Lor ige tc
Nw

the basis of which the First boforrmation
 

 

 

bed

 

uniler section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against ths
above-riamed accused, In her far dbheyan which was recorded by

NUK. Sah, SD of Lalmativa P.S., Talamai Marancld hes stated that

 

OF she had gone to Hafia with her husband and

while returning home when they reached Dorma Chowk at ai
QocQO PM they saw that the accused were sts nding near the
bicyele shop of Pradeep Pandit. Chota Du go Hermbrarm caught
held of her husband and pulled Kim down and attacked hin
with knife. When her infured husband fell on the ground Sulfa

embram picked up a big stone and hit her husband with the

 
 

wsband bresthed his last

Niasbarid hacl core ty her hase at about feo mor ALE rs back and

when they did not find her. husband at hore took <

and they were armoyed bec

  

Som Soren and

 

cote

cognizance of the offence was. taken by the learned Chief

   

 

Jurlicial Magistrate, Godda vide order dated. 28.06.2008,

 

order dated 17

rt
"fy
s
ys
teep,
fa
2
.

nok vs oh *

sO2 /149 of the Indian Penal Cache

mom Seren. He has faced the trial

noticed above was convicted for causing death of Bajlal Murmu in furtherance af common intention of all.

The prosecution, has examined 12 witnesses ta

suppart the charge framed against

Miurmau who is unde of

geen,

thus feceased, PW-5-Saran M

neege

PW-G-Baranvas Maran a x8 brother-in-law of the deceased were projected by the prosecution as eyewitnesses. PW-5, Ce. Praceep Kurnar Sinha who candueted the postmortem examirnation has found five injuries all SAEVONS a and antemortem in mature on the

of Bajal Murmu. PW-2-Shankar Pandit and PW.3~Jagdis

Soy eR SY Rhee eee ert oye ot : A Fea} Gu mel Suppart the prosecution during the trial

Ione ean $ pont bee ory $ shee ee a ope WM a roe 0 or Sh we 2 x bee £"s fen 7

ed ch € OPER

fy Wa gt pened, be oo ek LS fad a % het we Ay , wo et be i he Obs aa red at a feos a "hea LA ws fost gs he wt re ne woe te si od --) ue : gt Sy Md bd é ve om oT ue wpheei cet so ww " = 'eoere ao ony Ly m4, a 3 boeg bee fae Tet pehed ; ee tens SS Far' ~ pred es go ret: rh $ "nad oe ood a rt VA oh joed rt ao : a o *s ool iS ns Sy a ry, a ue ie, nh ra fag w aoe Sy Ss oe Y ws ° oS oe nel ; Bo rs , , ' L geod : bea Bi ag" Chagoo fed Pps aa : a3 ae devi es 'aed be oa ee oe Me ok A se ® ' a ee "% " ° 4 oes he we ead i vyeee 4 net oot ws "4 +4 we Ne un, wes heed pe 'od ae gs Pr % it ee "5 y Not 4 $ th : tA , nis . %. ipteng i the a Re Oh oot an ee beeen eS, ad wt Dh aa oY hae! < 0 gt 3 rré " od "ae! o eye C3 serene, ms seeeey Ne ; ae r a) we my oe no Se ee! a 4 Oh Pt ae "ES wt 2 : Nw Lo eet ry red ~ babes gt ge fy rong toh on eee - ny be ey es a oom rey set hes Sane ? Le a? t an ret eye: Anne rs res ned the Ld: . dene cmt seek ws ct "Sy rast 0% ot eee wt i Ls "he ri teed Ww "heed a teed ; Lo vr ' ae os v4 on get o's ores rt A mm we 4 N A ede wt vrre ~ he RS 4

CUSSS f

n D ht " st

we gost gt oe aS es, ne

I a e&

CLO

oe jet ws ee ret Dyed go Be a we m t ms feats 5 te o Set sy wn fate Sead .

rs ty oO a po the " $e ee o boot we St ay : Poe 4 va nt a vy e Se ad seek red : iy pons « he Sd fn nent y a3 .

Ife rocee rr tne rw 2 po esos re

Cae

y '

re i}

SESE Cia

;

section

OF Sector os

Sy oy Gaed

we i vet

a we

ancl

Sek.

tes

brain:

fF &

ta Duge He

ash

tab.

all .

fan of

intern

i +

oe Soa

COTM

= z 3h

v sw

of Ne

therar

b hee

~ wad

;

ioneal £ON0

fardbeyan. She has stated about her visit to Hatia on 29 02. 2008 with her husband, In the evening at about 09:00 PM she was returning hore with her husband on a bicycle and hen they reached near the bieycle shop of Pradeep Fandn, Chota Duge Herbram apprehended her husband and pulled him down. She has made specific allegations of assault by Chota Druge Hembram with a knife and St afal Hembram throwing Q stone on the head of her husband. She has named six persons inchading the appellant who were present near the bicycle shop of Pradeep Pandit who according to her had alse assaulted her husband. PW-4 is another eyewitness who has stated about presence of the appellant at the place Lbdseaience arid he has made a specific allegation that all the accused: had Y pulled down Bajal Murmu ort the Browne PW-6 has stated in the Court that at about 03:00 PM in evening he was af Dorma: Chowk, He lives at a distance of about 1 4% KM and admits in his cpoes-examination that at Dorma he dic not meet Talamai Marandi and her husband | From: his testimony, we find 2& deubtful that he has actually seen the assault upon Reajal Mourmiu. PW-9 has also mace a general statement that all the accused had assaulted Bajal Murmru, PW-10° has admitted in his

cross-examination that at the time of the occurrence he was at

Hatia, though in the later part of his cross-examination he has tried to indicate that he hac arrived at Dorma Chowk at the

Srne of oreurrence. PW-il whe has admitted in his

crose-examination that on bulla he had gone ta the place ol

securrence is also nat a witness how Balai Murnni was

a r:e8aulted,

However from the evidence of the prosemation witnesses, presence of Som Soren along with other accused near the bicyele shap of Pradeep Pandit is established.

o, Three accused, narnely, Chota Dugo Hermbram, Sara Dugo Nembram and Sufal Hembram were convicts do under

section 802/34 of the Indian Penal Code in S.C, No. LPS of 2008

and these prosecution witnesses have tenc Jered similar evidence

x, weed, ay n Sm US OR Ne sv ne ret eet gt a ~~ hee we hed "gs ise mm a is .

oot ot rt oe at A bed Ned Na? aad mw ged week we pe ee pews bey rent Ne ~ y's a o ped eas ed 'he kate ip EOS wy FE pK gS a oh fh . aw om seek at ao ;

"US ga ~~ moos ne Bs nos f 7 sent tthe, nt fad mr re a m3 aes wh ead' an 3 ,

- At v4 oy ts oe . af re RB ee v% 64 . ew xe? gut oe egy m™ z Meee a os food on we? : "heck eon bes ore, we he pe a be OS Sd ee eS tee 3 rea "ey my ed Ne 3 aod aot pd tae fi oo, ry veg ONG et oy, Seed 7 a ON be Be se at os Nees Nae at , Sten wy fy oe ? Z wet os LG % ne arte gevt 4% pay food AL $ a te wR By tt oe : Sen '.

na Pr a 5 pak & os.

wee Seen hs co ~ vee - roe, Fae gt

Qiunde

fond any oo nh ten Ao y ee ree ms

~~ fn wh ne oy tne ~

+ i we "eed eae ~~

Soe :

ee ms

rien ther os ont ys o donb ioe

ree See pees ed wee

WHS

wiin S.c. Na. I

OF Trent

: aL % read iS & x eS a > teed wboot wad be ree ot pooed _~ ny a can . eal aol, My wes eet " mm * at nn RAS fy wee arn ae . a ae Reh i we Gant "a4 ore. vs ' aes Ne pan a me nto, om ~ ro Me, wed ° id 43 toa cons Los ar f& on " .

ot at pot 7" tar Ne the woop rie bone ras vat ~ nt _ Mie gs pete Y 43 a ne tt pained, so rey 'int . Nee wh hoes Ay wt x ; A -- oy ww as vqeed wy ae " s rs ae, hd wo os a ro ae cet sees im ey 7 ae, ret Cc 2 Le ' ae ae ve Poe ne caer ttt ere cer crereees Che ed ma aes rN Ve tae i) yee,

LQ, Mr. Aman Shekhar, the learned counsel for the

appellant werald contend that Uke Bara Dugo Hembram

gore ped on iy

prosecution has failed to establish that Sorm Seren sheared

sartimor intertion with Chota Dugo Hermbram te

Murma. The trigis in S.C. No. i? of

we ~

SC. No, 2S af 2OOR were

separately and the evidences led by the prosecution in

S.C, Noe. 172 of 2008 were not brought on record when.

No, S38 of 2O08 was in progress and the prosecution witnesses were riot comfronted with thelr previous siatement in the other

trial so as to «hi

Dany inconsistency in their deposition in by

the trials. However, we find thatan S No » 238 of 2008 also the prosecution witnesses haye mot rnade any specific allegation of assault by Som Soren. As we have already noted Reremabove, PW-i has stated that all the 'accused started asseutre her

husbarcd and PW-4 | | that all the

Bajal Murrivu on the gro Lan ch But in their te other Witnesses have not made such attributions to Sem Soren, The allegation that all the accused have assauited Rajal Murrnu is not supported by the medical evidence in as mich as the head

irgury is attributable to Sufal Hembratn: aricl four

ox a yada nanan Sei fe . . dee gM AS oe pye myuries were allégerl to have been ealisect by Chota Dugo

Hembram and there is no other injury found on the person a!

Bajal Murima,

Lh. PW-o-Dr, Pradeep Kumar Sinha who has conduct

the postrnartem examination has found

the following inypuries or

fenoe

the dead body of Bajal Murrmu:

val scalp with fracture of frontal Done.

wer FIGhe 3

"oper left side of "€uPPE er gart af face

2. This is not the prosecution evidence that

Chota Dugo Hembrarn other accused have also

Murmi with a knife. This is also not

ott

that Som Soren has played any role in accomplishing the final

act, that is, murder of Bajal Murmu and there is no material on

eM iy Bayes * In "frkash Bora

ith the others to cause des

for want of clinching evidence en of three accused

they were extended benefit of doubt and their conviction

recorded with the aid of section S34 of the Indian Penal Code was

» Horble Supreme Court

a persor can be guilty with the

section G4 it must be established: that there was & coTnmon

intention and the persons being sought fo be held Hable rust

have participated im the crime for accompli si ng the final act. in

PrN

paragraph ne, 9 af the reported judgment, t the Hon'ble Suprerne

Court has heid as under:

i in. SOHNE pray PRP

iat recy

~ ma

13, Mr, Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP has

etrenuousiy argued that once presence of

» place of occurrence and sore o

wave stated abewt some role plaved by other

eorviction of Sern Soren with the aid of section <

neld weil founded. Birt in view of the scanty

of the prosecution witnesses on

semurrerice and the medical

WaT

r evidence in so far allegati

ssault upon Bajal Murmra by the other acoused is

-e unable to agree with the learned APP. The

the prosecution in S.C. No. 238 of 2005 do ri

death of Bajal Murmu was caused in furtherance of commor intention to commil his rrureer.

14, Having minutely serutirdsed the materials on record, we come fo a conclusion that the prosemutian has failed fo establish that Som Soren has played any role in furtherance af

= common intention of all to commit murder of Bajal Murmm.

gam the Ceuart

Notwithstanding serne of the witness: depsin

about participation of all the accused in the occurrence, we hold

the prosecution has failed ta prove the charge framed

iS. Mr. Manoj Kirnar Mishre, the lear ned APP states that Sem Saren is on bail.

Ls, Aceordingly, Sam. Soren who is on ball shall be

discharged of liability of the bail bonds furrushed by him.

Lv. Criminal Appeal (DE) No, 447 of 2011 is allowed.

18. We appre Nate the able assistance Oy Mr. Aman

Shek

the learned cenmee! for the appellant and Mr. Mano