Dharamdas Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 663 Jhar

                            Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

        [Against the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2009 and order of sentence
        dated 7.3.2009, passed by Shri Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional District &
        Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in S.T. No. 38 of 2007.
                                  ----------

Dharamdas Pradhan, S/o late Bihun Pradhan, R/o Village-Parba Chadridastoli, P.O. P.S. Jaldega, District-Simdega. .....Appellant Versus

The State of Jharkhand. ....Respondent

--------

For the Appellant : Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Special P.P.

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

--------

08/8/02/2023 Heard Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.03.2009 and order of sentence dated 7.3.2009, passed by Shri Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega in S.T. No. 38 of 2007, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months.

3. The fardbeyan of Jario Devi was recorded on 24.12.2006, in which it has been stated that on 23.12.2006, her son Dharamdas Pradhan (appellant) without intimating his father went for removal of lac from the Kusum tree. When her husband Bihun Pradhan came to know about the said fact at 2 P.M. he became infuriated and proceeded for the said place. She followed her husband to prevent any untoward incident between father and son as her son used to regularly quarrel with his father. It has been alleged that at 4 P.M. her husband reached Katingarha bandh and her son was also returning after collecting lac and when her husband confronted his son for collecting lac from the Kusum tree without his permission, a quarrel had ensued and in course of such quarrel, Dharamdas with an axe assaulted her husband 6-7 times, as a result of which, Bihun Pradhan was grievously injured and after sometime, he died.

2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Jaldega P.S. Case No. 39 of 2006 was instituted against Dharamdas Pradhan for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the accused and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 38 of 2007. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under section 302 IPC, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as thirteen witnesses in support of its case.

P.W-1-Gandru Kulla has stated that Bihun Pradhan was murdered by his son-Dharamdas Pradhan. On the date of occurrence, Dharamdas had come to his house and disclosed that he has killed his father. Dharamas had disclosed about the murder to this witness and the co-villagers and had also brought them to the place where the dead body was lying. He had put his thumb impression on the inquest report.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that it was dusk when the incident was disclosed to him by Dharamdas Pradhan. He has stated that all the villagers had gone to see the dead body.

P.W-2-Shyam Sundar Pradhan has stated that Dharamdas Pradhan had come to his house at night and disclosed that he had committed the murder of his father. Dharamdas had disclosed about the said fact to other co-villagers and all had gone and seen the dead body. He had put his thumb impression as a witness in the inquest report.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence. He had gone to see the dead body in the next morning.

P.W-3-Bangtu Pradhan has deposed that the murder of Bihun Pradhan was committed by Dharamdas Pradhan about a year back. Dharamdas Pradhan had come to his house in the evening and disclosed that he has committed the murder of his father. Dharamdas had taken the villagers to the place where the dead body was lying. They had guarded the dead body the entire night.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the dead body was lying on the ground and not in a ditch. He has stated that the mother of Dharamdas had also gone to see the dead body.

P.W-4-Paltan Manjhi has stated that Dharamdas Pradhan had come to his house in the evening and disclosed about the murder committed by him. He 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

remained near the dead body the entire night and in the morning the police had come and had taken away the dead body.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen on which part of the body injuries were inflicted. He does not know about any previous quarrel between the accused and the deceased.

P.W-5-Birsa Kujur has stated that he had not seen the occurrence. Lalu Manjhi had disclosed to him that Dharamdeo himself has confided to the villagers of the murder of his father committed by him. He had gone to the place where the dead body of Bihun Pradhan was lying.

P.W-6-Ramchandra Manjhi has stated that he had not seen the occurrence which had taken place on Saturday. On Sunday morning, when he had gone to graze cattle, Dharamdas Pradhan had disclosed to him about committing the murder of his father.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had come to know about the incident from Dharamdas.

P.W-7-Paltu Pradhan is the younger brother of Bihun Pradhan who has stated that the murder of his brother by Dharamdas was disclosed to him by Shyam Sundar. He thereafter went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his brother.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence.

P.W-8-Lalo Nath has stated that he had come to know on the next day of the occurrence about Dharamdas committing the murder of his father.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence.

P.W-9-Chand Devi is the sister in law of Bihun Pradhan, who was murdered and on the next day, Shyam Sundar had come and disclosed about the incident. She does not know as to who had committed the murder. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W-10-Lalu Manjhi has stated that about one and half years back on a Saturday when he was in his house, Dharamdas Pradhan had come in the evening and disclosed that he had committed the murder of his father-Bihun Pradhan with an axe. This witness had gone to see the dead body.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had come to know about the occurrence on Saturday. He had not witnessed the murder.

4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

P.W-11-Jario Devi is the informant and the wife of the deceased who has stated that the incident is of one year seven months back. At 4 P.M., her husband was storing straw and thereafter she and her husband had gone towards Katingarha to wash themselves. She was following her husband from a distance of about 10 ft. and when they reached Katingarha she found her son Dharamdas taking out lac from a tree. Her husband forbade Dharamdas to do so, at which Dharamdas assaulted her husband with an axe resulting in instant death. She was also attacked but she managed to save herself. She has stated that she and her daughter Jayawati who is dumb was chased by Dharamdas but both managed to escape. Dharamdas was roaming around the locality and at 1 A.M., had again tried to assault her but she fled to the house of another person. The police had come in the evening and recorded her fardbeyan, in which she had put her thumb impression.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that Dharamdas had come running and assaulted her husband with an axe. The assault was committed on several parts of his body. The accused had himself disclosed to everyone that the murder of his father was committed by him. The police had seized the blood stained axe. She has stated that the wife of Dharamdas had gone to her parents place where the child of Dharamdas had died. Her son Dharamdas stayed with her and they had a common mess. Dharamdas had used to regularly quarrel with his father without any reasons.

P.W-12-Dr. Raj Kumar Chaudhary was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Simdega and on 25.12.2006, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bihun Pradhan and had found the following :-

Injury No. (1) lacerated wound length ½ " ¼ "x ¼ on left side of face just lateral to anterior angle of left eye.

Injury No. (2) lacerated wound ½ " ¼ "x ¼ about ½ " below the injury no.

1. Injury No. (3) lacerated wound 1"x1/2"x muscle deep over left side of chin. Injury No. (4) abrasion 4"x3" over sternum. Injury No. (5) clavicle fracture on both side. Injury No. (6) fracture of 5th and 6th ribs on left side anterior auxiliary line and Injury No. (7) multiple small abrasion over left side of chest on posterior side.".

All the injuries are ante mortem in nature caused by hard blunt object like back of tangi (axe) and injury no. (7) can be possible by dragging on hard and rocky surface. The cause of death was opined to be due to hemorrhage and 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

shock caused by injuries. He has proved the postmortem report, which has been marked as Ext-1.

P.W-13-Arjun Singh Kunkal was posted at a Jaldega P.S. and on 24.12.2006 he received an information from the Chowkidar at 6.30 A.M. about the commission of murder of a person near Katingarha bandh. After registering a station diary entry, he had proceeded for the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence, he found the dead body of Bihun Pradhan. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Jario Devi at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-2. He has proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-2/1. He has also proved the formal FIR, which has been marked as Ext-3. He had taken over investigation at the place of occurrence itself. He had seized a blood stained axe from the place of occurrence and the seizure list was prepared, which has been marked as Ext-

4. He had prepared the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext-5. The dead body was sent for postmortem. The place of occurrence is the agricultural field named Katingarha bandh, through which a trickle of water flowed. Witnesses had disclosed that the taking out of lac from the Kusum tree was the cause of assault. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statement of the other witnesses. He had produced the seized axe in the court, which has been marked as Material Ext. No. 1. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against Dharamdas Pradhan.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that the place of occurrence is a lonely place surrounded by jungles and has a narrow road. The Kusum tree is situated at a distance of 100 yards from the place of occurrence. At the place of occurrence, he had first met Jario Devi. There were 5-6 persons present there. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses at the place of occurrence itself. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he has denied his involvement in the murder.

6. Ms. Chaitali Chatterjee Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based on the solitary eye witness account of P.W-11. It has been submitted that assuming the testimony of P.W- 11 to be true, no offence is made out against the appellant under section 302 IPC as at best a case under section 304 IPC is made out since the incident had occurred at the spur of the moment due to a quarrel. She has also brought to the notice of the court that the appellant is in custody for more than sixteen years.

7. Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned Special P.P., has submitted that as per P.W- 11, repeated axe blows were given upon the person of the deceased, which has 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

been corroborated in the postmortem report and such assault would not come within the purview of Section 304 IPC.

8. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records. A dispute with respect to collection of lac from a Kusum tree led to the appellant assaulting his father with an axe, which resulted in the instant death of his father. The fardbeyan of the mother of the appellant reveals that when the deceased Bihun Pradhan came to know about his son having gone to collect lac from the Kusum tree, he became infuriated and went to the said place with the informant following him. On being confronted by his father, the appellant retaliated by giving several axe blows upon his father. P.W-11 is the sole eye witness who in her testimony has reiterated having seen the assault committed by the appellant upon her husband. Though there are no eye witnesses save and except P.W-11 but most of the prosecution witnesses have consistently stated about the appellant disclosing about the act of murder committed by him. The postmortem report also reveals several injuries having been found on the person of the deceased, which corroborates the manner of assault. It is thus established that the death of Bihun Pradhan had occurred on account of the assault committed by the appellant.

9. Though, undoubtedly the assault was committed by the appellant but the same was not premeditated or preconceived. The appellant was forbade from collecting lac by the deceased and the same led to the incident. The house of the appellant and the deceased is situated at Parwatola at village-Chadridas, which is at a distance of one and half-two kilometers from the place of occurrence. The fardbeyan reveals that the deceased had left his home at 2 P.M. and reached the place of occurrence at 4 P.M. The deceased had left in an agitated state and after travelling for two hours had confronted the appellant and his demonor at such time can easily be fathomed. Such confrontation led to a retaliation by the appellant. As per P.W-11, there was frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant and it flared up and culminated in the death of the father of the appellant on a trivial issue of collection of lac. The act of the appellant in the circumstances, noted above, would therefore attract an offence punishable under section 304 Part I IPC.

10. Accordingly, the impugned judgement of conviction dated 05.03.2009 and order of sentence dated 7.3.2009, passed by Shri Ashutosh Dubey, learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega, in S.T. No. 38 of 2007 is modified by convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under section 304 Part I IPC and the sentence is also modified to rigorous imprisonment for ten years.

7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 459 of 2020

11. Since the appellant is in custody for the last more than sixteen years and has completed the modified sentence imposed upon him, he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

12. This appeal is disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay,J)

(Ambuj Nath, J)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 8th February, 2023.

Rakesh/NAFR