Konta Munda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2024 Latest Caselaw 5504 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Konta Munda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 10 June, 2024

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Deepak Roshan

    [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
    06.03.1998 (sentence passed on 07.03.1998) passed by Shri R.N.
    Verma, learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in
    Sessions Trial No. 166/1997/G.R. No. 576/1996]
               Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 72 of 1998 (R)
                             ...........
    1.      Konta Munda
    2.      Ganjo Munda
    3.      Chamu Rai Munda
    4.      Guruwa Munda
    5.      Mango Munda
    6.      Chhotu Munda
    7.      Mango Munda
    8.      Bull Munda
    9.      Dilli Munda                       ... ... Appellants
                             Versus
   The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)   ... ... Respondents
                             ...........
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
                             ...........
   For the Appellants : Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate
   For the Resp.-State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl. P.P.
                             ...........
                           JUDGMENT

Per Mr. Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Order No. 07/Dated, the 10th June, 2024

Heard Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. for the respondent-State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.1998 (sentence passed on 07.03.1998) passed by Shri R.N. Verma, learned IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No. 166/1997/G.R. No. 576/1996, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Budhram Pahan, in which, it has been stated that on

21.09.1996 at about 8:30 P.M. his son Pandu Pahan went to the paddy field to irrigate the land by taking water from a nearby pond. The informant after sometime proceeded for the same place and when he reached near the field he saw in moonlight the named accused persons variously armed chasing his son in order to kill him. The informant had hid himself behind the bush and had witnessed the occurrence. It has been alleged that when his son reached the field of Devi Dayal, the accused persons intercepted him and committed assault on him after which they fled away. When the informant went to the field of Devi Dayal he found his son lying dead with multiple injuries on his person. The reason for the occurrence is that 15 days back his son was threatened by the accused persons on account of a land dispute.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Arki P.S. Case No. 43/1996 was instituted against nine accused persons u/s 302/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 166/1997. Charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Budhram Pahan) is the informant and father of the deceased Pandu Pahan who has stated that the incident is of a year back when his son took a spade and went to water his field from the tank of Konta Munda. When he after sometime went to the field he found his son being chased by the accused persons who were armed with Farsa,

Tangi and Dauli . All the accused persons surrounded his son and killed him. He has stated that he had seen the incident of assault clearly as it was a moonlit night. He has also stated that about 15 days back his son was threatened by the accused persons when he was sowing watermelon in his field. When the accused persons had left he had reached the place of occurrence and found his son dead. He had returned back to his house and informed about the incident to the villagers as well as his brothers and nephews. He thereafter went to the Police Station where his fardbeyan was recorded.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his son had informed him about the threat given by the accused persons about fifteen days back. No case was instituted regarding such threat. The land in question belongs to him. His house is situated at a distance of 500 yards from the Pond. He has deposed that he was watching the occurrence from behind the bushes. When he had reached near the field he had seen his son running and the accused persons were chasing him from a distance of 4-5 hands. He had identified all the accused persons from their back while they were chasing his son. The sky was clear and it was the 9th day of full moon. The bush where he had hid himself was at a distance of 10 yards from the place of occurrence.

6. P.W.2 (Soma Pahan) has stated that it was around 9:00 P.M., and he was in his house when the informant came and disclosed that the accused persons have committed the murder of his son when his son was irrigating his field. He had also stated about witnessing the incident. He after getting such news rushed to the place of occurrence where he found the dead body of Pandu Pahan having multiple injuries on his person.

In cross-examination, he has admitted that his father and the informant are brothers.

7. P.W.3 (Girdhari Pahan) was tendered by the prosecution.

8. P.W.4 (Mangal Singh Munda) has identified his signature as well as the signature of Rajendra Prasad on the inquest report which have been marked as Exhibit-1 and Exhibit-1/1 respectively.

9. P.W.5 (Rajendra Prasad) is also a formal witness who has admitted that the inquest report was prepared by the Police in his presence.

10. P.W.6 (Gurucharan Mirdha) is the Chowkidar of the village who has stated that at midnight Budhram Pahan had come to his house and disclosed to him about the occurrence. The informant had disclosed that Dilli, Kanto and Mange have killed his son. Rest of the accused persons were not named by the informant to him.

11. P.W.7 (Samuh Pahan) has stated that it was about 8:00 P.M. when Budhram Pahan came to his house and disclosed about the murder of his son committed by all the accused persons.

12. P.W.8 (Dr. Bijay Kumar Prasad) was posted at Sub- Divisional Hospital, Khunti and on 23.09.1996 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Pandu Pahan and had found the following injuries:

(i) Sharp cut injury 3"x1" x ¾" horizontal on right parietal region 1" above ear cutting on soft tissues, Artery vein and ½" of parietal bone.

(ii) Sharp cut injury horizontal 2½" x 1½" ½" vertical on right side at the level of tragus of right ear cutting the right ear, muscle artery, vein, right parietal bone at base and brain matter.

(iii) Sharp cut injury 1½" x 1" x ½" on right side of forehead cutting the soft tissues, artillery veins on tissues of bone.

(iv) Sharp cut injury horizontal 5" x 1" x ½" on left parietal region 2" above left ear cutting the sub- tissues artery veins and bone.

(v) Sharp cut injury vertical 1½" x ½" x ½" at middle of forehead cutting the soft tissues.

(vi) Sharp cut injury 1½" x ½" x ½" on left fact cutting the soft tissue artery and veins.

(vii) Sharp cut injury 3" x 1½" x ½" on left upper Arm laterally 2" below shoulder joint cutting the soft tissues and fracture of left humerus.

(viii) Sharp cut injury 4½" x 1½" x 1 on back below tibs of scapula cutting soft tissues, muscle ½"

body of 12th vertebra.

All the injuries were antemortem in nature caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-4.

13. P.W.9 (Shaligram Choudhry) has proved the fardbeyan, the inquest report and the case diary which have been marked as Exhibits-3, 4 and 5 respectively.

14. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their participation in the murder of Pandu Pahan.

15. Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that save and except P.W.1 there are no eye-witness to the occurrence and even the evidence of P.W.1 is tainted with doubt. He has submitted that the identification of the appellants by P.W.1 has not been conclusively proved.

16. Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl. P.P. has submitted that P.W.1 had seen the incident from a short distance by hiding himself behind the bushes in a moonlit night and the evidence of P.W.2 corroborates the version of P.W.1.

17. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the Lower Court Records.

18. The son of the informant namely, Pandu Pahan was chased by the appellants who were variously armed and after

surrounding him had committed assault upon him and resultantly Pandu Pahan died. The informant who has been examined as P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. He had hid himself behind the bush and had seen the occurrence and he has named all the nine accused persons of having been seen participating in the murder. As per the fardbeyan his son had left for the field at 8:30 P.M. and he followed him after sometime. As per P.W.2, he was informed by P.W.1 about the incident at 9:00 P.M. while P.W.7 has stated that he was informed at 8:00 P.M. Thus from the timing of the information disseminated to P.W.2 and P.W.7 it can be deciphered that the place of occurrence is nearby to the village. We have stressed upon the timing to show that P.W.1 at the first hint of the impending danger to the life of his son could have turned back and sought assistance from the villagers or should have raised an alarm which would have notified the villagers about the necessity of their assistance. P.W.1 did neither and he instead hid behind a bush and watched the occurrence unfold. This conduct of P.W.1 being the father of the deceased seems to be most unnatural in the circumstances noted in the fardbeyan.

19. So far as the identification of the appellants are concerned, all nine seem to have been identified by P.W.1. It was the 9th day of full moon and P.W.1 by hiding himself behind a bush had watched the murder and had given a vivid description of the same in his fardbeyan. The evidence of P.W.1 identifying all the appellants seems too farfetched more so in absence of any corroborative evidence. In his cross- examination P.W.1 has deposed about identifying all the appellants from their back. The incident seems to have occurred between 8:30 P.M.-9:00 P.M. and except the natural light there was no other source of identification of the

appellants. The Moon was also in the second quarter of its phase and it was waning, therefore, there was no question of having a fully illuminated night. All these lead us to conclude that the identification made by P.W.1 of all the appellants having participated in the assault of his son is doubtful and cannot be relied upon for the purpose of conviction.

20. Another doubt seems to have been made in the prosecution case as P.W.6 who is the Chowkidar of the village has stated about only three names who had committed the murder as disclosed to him by P.W.1. The learned trial court has not considered the evidence of P.W.1 in its proper perspective and, therefore, we on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.03.1998 (sentenced passed on 07.03.1998) passed by Shri R.N. Verma, learned II nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 166/1997/G.R. No. 576/1996.

21. This appeal is allowed.

22. Since the appellants are on bail they are discharged from the liabilities of their bail bonds.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 10th June, 2024.

A. Sanga / NAFR