Jharkhand High Court
Mangal Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 October, 2022
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 691 of 2016
Against the judgment dated of conviction dated 31.05.2016 and order of
sentence dated 01.06.2016 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned
District & Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dumka in S. T. No. 190 of 2009.
---
Mangal Soren ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
---
C.A.V. on - 14.07.2022 Pronounced on - 18.10.2022
Heard Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction
dated 31.05.2016 and order of sentence dated 01.06.2016 passed by Sri
Surendra Nath Mishra, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge IV,
Dumka in S. T. No. 190 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellant
has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of
Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 15,000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for an additional four
months.
3. The fard beyan of Babu Ram Soren was recorded on
24.02.2009 in which it has been stated that on 23.02.2009, Maghi Puja was
being performed in his house. At about 5:00 PM, his son Shyamlal Soren
was called by his nephew namely Debashish Soren, who had taken him
to his house. It has been alleged that Mangal Soren (appellant) and his
wife Maku Murmu had caught hold of the son of the informant and
Debashish Soren started cutting the neck of Shyamlal Soren with a sickle.
Shyamlal Soren managed to flee and come back to his house, but due to
excessive bleeding, he died after one hour in the courtyard of the
informant. The incident was informed to the police through the local
Chowkidar. The cause of murder is that for the last 10-15 years, a
dispute with respect to 6-7 bighas of land was going on between the
informant and his brother Mangal Soren.
4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jarmundi P. S. Case No.
40 of 2009 was instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 I.P.C.
against Mangal Soren, Maku Murmu and Debashish Soren. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against Mangal
Soren under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and after cognizance was taken, the
case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was registered as
S. T. No. 190 of 2009. Charge was framed for the offence punishable
under Sections 302/34 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the
accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in
support of its case.
P.W. 1 - Dewan Soren has deposed that the incident had occurred
a year and a month ago. It was 5:30 PM and Maghi Puja was being
celebrated in the village. He has stated that Shyamlal Soren was caught
by Maku Murmu and Mangal Soren and taken to their house. He had
seen Shyamlal Soren coming out from his house drenched in blood. On
seeing this, the villagers came running and saw that his neck was cut.
Debashish had a knife in his hand. While Debashish and Maku fled
away, Mangal Soren was kept captive by the villagers. He has also stated
that the village Chowkidar was informed. Shyamlal Soren died within
10 minutes. The Chowkidar informed the police who came and arrested
Mangal soren. The sickle was taken away by the police. He has proved
the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit 1.
In cross-examination, he has stated that Babu Ram Soren is the
brother of Mangal Soren. Both resides separately and have separate
land. They are living separately for the last 15-20 years. He has further
stated that there is no land dispute between them. He cannot say as to
what happened inside the house. He has also stated that there were
three injuries on the neck of Shyamlal Soren.
P.W. 2 - Naiki Hansda has deposed that on the date of incident
Maghi Puja was being celebrated in the village. Debashish Soren had
taken the son of Babu Ram to his house. The mother of Debashish had
caught hold of the hand and had told Debashish to cut him and
thereafter Debashish had assaulted on the neck of the son of Babu Ram
with sickle. Shyamlal Soren ran back to his house, fell down in the
courtyard and died. The village Chowkidar informed the police about
the occurrence. The sickle was taken away by the police.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that in between the house of
Debashish and this witness, there are 6-7 houses. The son of Babu Ram
was forcibly taken away to the house of Debashish. He was in the alley
and he had witnessed the act of assault. When he raised alarm, the
villagers had assembled. He does not know about the existence of
enmity between both the sides. He has stated that he had not gone to the
courtyard of Debashish though, subsequently he has stated that he had
gone to the courtyard of Debashish. He had thereafter gone to the
courtyard of Babu Ram. He has stated that Debashish had committed
the assault with a sickle three times.
P.W. 3 - Babu Ram Soren is the informant, who has stated that the
incident is of one year five months back at about 5:30 PM. when Maghi
Puja was being celebrated in his village. He had performed the Puja and
had come back home. Debashish Soren had come to his house and had
taken away Shyamlal Soren to his house. He has stated that Maku
Murmu and Mangal Soren had caught hold of Shyamlal Soren while
Debashish Soren had cut his neck with a sickle. An alarm was raised and
the village Chowkidar was informed. He has further stated that Maku
Murmu and Debashish Soren had fled away while Mangal Soren was
intercepted. After one hour Shyamlal Soren had died. The police had
come and recorded his statement. He has further stated that Shyamlal
Soren was his only son.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had seen the
occurrence from the alley. His house and the house of Mangal are in a
same line. Shyamlal Soren was called by Debashish and within 5-10
minutes Shyamlal Soren came back holding his neck. This witness was
inside the house when Shyamlal Soren came back. He has stated that
Shyamlal Soren had disclosed that he had suffered an injury on the neck.
On the date of incident, he had consumed haria. He has further
deposed that there was no land dispute with Mangal. A case had been
instituted as Mangal had assaulted the father of this witness. He was in
an alley near the house of Girija Baski and, Dewan Soren and Naiki
Hansda were with him. When Debashish had come to call Shyamlal
Soren, this witness was in his house. He has seen Mangal from the alley.
He did not try to catch hold of Mangal. Debashish Soren had taken away
his son to his house for having meal. There was no previous dispute and
he used to frequently visit the house of Mangal Soren. When his son
came out of the house of Debashish, he had seen his neck cut. He has
also deposed that Mangal is his elder brother and the partition of land
between them had already been done.
P.W. 4 - Dr. Anand Mohan Soren was posted as a Medical Officer
in Sadar Hospital, Dumka and on 24.09.2009, he had conducted autopsy
on the body of Shyamlal Soren and had found the following ante-
mortem injuries:
"Sharp cutting wound 5" x 2" over left side of neck red in colour
with surrounding clots, marks around neck and face, cutting down
muscle and neck vessels."
The cause of death was opined to be on account of haemorrhage
and shock as a result of the above injury. The weapon used was sharp
cutting. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked
as Exhibit 2.
P.W. 5 - Sunit Kumar, P.W. 6 - Babloo Soren and P.W. 7 - Som
Soren did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared
hostile by the prosecution.
6. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his involvement in the murder.
7. Mr. Mahadeo Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant has
submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence. He has
submitted that the implication of the appellant is on account of the fact
that the appellant is the father of the main accused Debashish Soren. So
far as the testimony of P.W. 3 is concerned, the same is full of
inconsistencies and contradictions.
8. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned A.P.P. has referred to the
testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 and has submitted that their
evidence clearly reveals that the appellant had actively participated in
committing the murder of Shyamlal Soren. According to him the post
mortem report also corroborates the manner of assault as attributed to
the appellant and the other accused persons.
9. We have considered the rival submissions and have also
perused the lower court records.
10. The fard beyan of Babu Ram Soren (P.W. 3) reveals that the
appellant and his wife Maku Murmu had caught hold of his son -
Shyamlal Soren, while Debashish had cut his neck with a sickle.
Shyamlal Soren who was profusely bleeding, managed to stagger back to
his house, where after some time he died.
11. The conviction of the appellant is based upon the evidence
of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3. P.W. 2 & P.W. 3 have consistently stated
about Debashish Soren taking away the deceased to his house. P.W. 1
has deposed that he had seen Shyamlal Soren coming out from the house
of the appellant drenched in blood. He has also stated about seeing a
knife in the hand of Debashish Soren. P.W. 2 in his cross-examination
has deposed that at the time of the incident, he was in the alley and he
had witnessed the incident. In his examination-in-chief, P.W. 2 has
stated about Maku Murmu catching hold of Shyamlal Soren while
Debashish had cut his neck with a sickle.
12. The evidence of the informant (P.W. 3) seems to be
inconsistent with respect to his having witnessed the incident. He has
claimed to have seen the entire episode from an alley, while he also
claims that when Shyamlal Soren came back to his house with his neck
cut, he was inside the house. He has not stated about what immediate
steps he had taken on seeing such assault being committed upon his son.
In his cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not tried to catch
hold of the appellant.
13. It is not in dispute that the incident had occurred in the
house of the appellant. The evidence of the witnesses further indicates
that he had consumed liquor since Maghi Puja was being celebrated in
the village. P.W. 3 as well as the other witnesses have stated that there
was no enmity between both of the sides. The appellant is the own
brother of the informant. Therefore, there was no motive for committing
such murderous assault upon Shyamlal Soren.
14. So far as the present appellant is concerned, he has been
convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and that too on the
circumstance that he was present in the house when the assault had
taken place. P.W. 1 has admitted in his cross-examination that he cannot
say as to what had happened inside the house. P.W. 2 in his evidence
has not crystalised any specific act undertaken by the appellant at the
time of the assault. The testimony of P.W. 3 clearly indicates that he is
not an eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of these three
witnesses however seems concentrated upon Debashish Soren as he was
seen with a knife apart from P.W. 2 witnessing the act of assault with a
sickle by Debashish Soren upon the deceased.
15. The circumstances projected by the learned trial court seem
to be non-existent so far as the present appellant is concerned. In fact,
the circumstances which have emerged in course of trial during the
testimony of the witnesses are weak in nature and coupled with the
absence of motive, benefit of doubt has to be extended to the appellant.
16. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we hereby set
aside the judgment of conviction dated 31.05.2016 and order of sentence
dated 01.06.2016 passed by Sri Surendra Nath Mishra, learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge IV, Dumka in S. T. No. 190 of 2009 whereby
and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of
Rs. 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple
imprisonment for an additional four months. This appeal stands allowed.
17. As the appellant is in custody since 23.02.2009, he is directed
to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Ambuj Nath, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 18th day of October, 2022
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
