Jharkhand High Court
Mahadeo Munda S/O Late Sokha Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 10 June, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 133 of 2014
----
[arising out of Judgment of Conviction dated
18th January, 2014 and Order of Sentence
dated 23rd January, 2014 passed by the
Additional Judicial Commissioner-17, Ranchi
in Sessions Trial No.70 of 2009]
----
1. Mahadeo Munda S/o Late Sokha Munda
2. Nandu Munda S/o Sri Sukuwa Munda
Both are residents of Village Baruhara, P.O. Jareya
(Jamchunwa), P.S. Namkum, District Ranchi.
... Appellants
-versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent
----
For the Appellants : Mr. Avilash Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Anwar Hussain, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P.
----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI SUBHASH CHAND, J.
----
JUDGMENT
Per Ananda Sen, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the
Judgment of Conviction dated 18th January, 2014 and Order of Sentence
dated 23rd January, 2014 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner
17, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.70 of 2009, whereby the appellants have
been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and they have been sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months
each.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution
has miserably failed to prove the motive behind the occurrence. He submits
that there are major contradictions in the statements of the prosecution
witnesses. He submits that the P.W.1 is a hearsay witness. The statement of
P.W.2 is contradictory as in her examination-in-chief she has stated in
paragraph 3 that while Chotku Lohra was on his way for his home, the
appellants stopped him and started arguing with him and thereafter she and
the deceased reached there when the appellants assaulted the deceased,
whereas at paragraph 7, she has stated that while they were returning home
from the house of Chotku Lohra, the appellants assaulted her husband.
Learned counsel further submits that P.W.3 is an interested witness. In cross
examination, he stated that as there was dark, he could not see as to which
weapon the appellants were armed with. Further P.W.4 has stated that it
was he and the deceased who accompanied Chotku Lohra to his home and
while they were returning, the incident took place. He has not stated that
wife of the deceased was also with them. This witness has further stated that
at the time of incident he only was present there, which makes a dent to the
prosecution case. P.W.5, at paragraph 5 of his cross examination has stated
that when he reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla, he saw
about 10 persons present there, but in paragraph 8 he stated that when he
reached the place of occurrence, nobody was there. Learned counsel
submits that these are major contradictions in the deposition of the
witnesses, which creates doubt about their credibility. He further submits that
no lathi was seized from the place of occurrence. Learned counsel argues
that though as per the prosecution witnesses, deceased was assaulted with
lathi and 10-15 lathi blows were given, yet in the postmortem report, save
and except the head injury, doctor did not find any other injury on the body of
the deceased. Learned counsel submits that all these flaws create a shadow
of doubt over the prosecution case, which the learned Trial Court has failed
to appreciate and has, thus, wrongly convicted the appellants.
3. Learned A.P.P. for the State submits that the learned Trial Court
has correctly convicted the appellants as there are sufficient materials as
against the appellants to prove their guilt. He submits that the prosecution
witnesses have stated in a uniform manner that the appellants have
assaulted the deceased due to which he sustained injuries resulting in his
death. He submits that there is no ambiguity or contradictions in the
depositions of the prosecution witnesses so as to create any doubt over the
prosecution case. The postmortem report also corroborates the assault and
the cause of death has been opined as injury caused on the head of the
deceased. Thus, he submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and
order sentence need no interference by this Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned A.P.P. for the State and have also gone through the records and the
entire evidence.
5. Prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant
Rolo Mundain, recorded on 13.08.2008. She stated that on 11.08.2008, after
completing the paddy sowing, there was dinner (khana peena) wherein
Chutku Lohra was also present till 10.00 p.m. After dinner when Chutku was
going to his home, on the way mother of Nandu Munda asked him as to
what he is doing at that time of night. In the meantime, Nandu Munda and
Mahadeo Munda came and told Chutku they will beat him. Both were drunk
excessively and were shouting loudly. On hearing this, husband of the
informant came out and said that Chotku works for them and why they are
threatening him. On this issue, both of them badly assaulted the husband of
the informant with lathi-danda due to which he became unconscious. Since it
was late night, she did not get any transport for taking him to the hospital,
thus, she took him in the next morning on 12.08.2008 to RIMS where he was
admitted for treatment. In course of treatment on 13.08.2008 husband of the
informant died. She stated that the incident was seen by the nearby villagers
and claimed that Nandu Munda and Mahadeo Munda, both with an intention
to kill her husband, assaulted him with lathi-danda, due to which he suffered
many injuries and died.
6. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Namkum Police
Station Case No.148 of 2008 was registered for offence under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Police took up the investigation and on
completion of the investigation, filed chargesheet No.185 of 2008 on
31.10.2008 under Sections 302/324 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance
of the offence was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
Charge with one head against the appellants was framed on 27.02.2009 for
offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Charge, so
framed, was read over and explained to the appellants, to which they
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, thus the appellants were put on
trial.
7. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined altogether
7 witnesses, namely, P.W.1 Budhni Lohra, P.W.2 Rolo Mundain (informant),
P.W.3 Nilima Mundain, P.W.4 Ghasia Munda, P.W.5 Lahru Munda, P.W.6
Dr. Aman Kumar and P.W.7 Chotku Lohra.
The prosecution also produced the following documentary
evidence, which were marked exhibits: -
Exhibit 1 & 1/1 Signature of P.W.4 and P.W.5 Ghasia Munda and
Lahru Munda respectively on the Inquest Report
Exhibit 2 Postmortem Report
The defence also examined four witnesses, namely, D.W.1 Dubi
Munda, D.W.2 Sunna Munda, D.W.3 Somra Munda and D.W.4 Gansha
Munda.
8. P.W.1 Budhni Lohra @ Manjula Devi has stated that the
occurrence is of less than one year ago. Occurrence had taken place at
about 10 O' clock at night. Accused persons had assaulted Ghuslu
(deceased) and had injured him. Ghuslu had suffered injury on his head.
Due to the assault he fell. On the next day morning deceased was taken to
Bariatu, where in course of treatment, he died after two days. This witness
has identified the appellants. She stated that her husband Chutku Mundu
used to work for Ghuslu Munda. On the date of occurrence, after sowing
was over, he had meals there itself. He had returned home at about 10 O'
clock at night. The occurrence took place when the deceased was
accompanying her husband to his home. She stated that her husband had
told her about the occurrence. She stated that they had been to the house of
Ghuslu to see him. In her cross examination, she stated that the police had
not recorded her statement during investigation. She stated that she had not
seen in which parts of the body the deceased had sustained injuries.
P.W.2 Rolo Mundain is the wife of the deceased and the
informant in this case. She stated that the occurrence is of less than a year.
It was 10 O' clock at night. Occurrence took place in the village, in front of
the house of Ashok Mahto. Appellants had assaulted the deceased with lathi
(stick). Injury was caused on his head and he fell down unconscious. Since it
was late in the night, she had kept her husband at home. On the next day
she took him to the hospital and got him admitted. In course of treatment,
her husband died on the next day. After the death, police had come and had
recorded her statement, which was explained to her and finding the same to
be true, she had put her thumb impression. She stated that Chutku Lohra is
of the same village and he was doing sowing work for them. On the date of
occurrence, after completing the sowing, feast (khan peen) was arranged.
Chotku Lohra also had taken food. At about 10 O' clock in the night while
Chotku Lohra was going to his home, on his way, the appellants started
asking him as to where he is going at night. Thereafter this witness and her
husband went there where the appellants assaulted her husband and injured
him. She has identified the appellants present in the Court. In her cross
examination she has stated that after completion of sowing, feast (khana
peena) was arranged for 200-250 persons. Meat and rice was served. It was
around 10 O' clock at night when the feast was over. She stated that after
taking food they slept and no occurrence took place. When Chotku Lohra left
their place, they were watching him. She stated that the occurrence took
place when they were returning from the house of Chotku Lohra. She stated
that the appellant Mahadeo had assaulted by danda (stick) on the deceased
and gave 10 blows. He had assaulted on his legs. Appellant Nandu had
given 15-20 danda blows on the deceased. Nandu had assaulted on his
head. The occurrence took place on Monday night. On Tuesday, she
admitted her husband in the hospital and on Wednesday at about 08-09 O'
clock, her husband died. At the time of assault 10-12 persons were present.
She stated that at the time of assault Lili Mundain, Yamuna Mundain etc.
were present. She had denied the suggestion that she had falsely implicated
the appellants.
P.W.3 Nilima Mundain has stated that the occurrence took
place on 11.08.2008. It was 10 O' clock at night. On that day sowing was
completed in the fields of Ghuslu Munda (deceased). After sowing was over,
they had returned to their home. Thereafter there was a feast (khana peena)
at the house of Ghuslu Munda. They, being the members of Mahila Samiti,
had also gone to the feast. Chotku Lohra after taking food was going to his
home and Ghuslu Munda was accompanying him. On their way, the
appellants stopped Chotku. On this, Ghuslu told them as to why they are
stopping him, he works for him. Thereafter Mahadeo and Nandu assaulted
Ghuslu with lathi and injured him. Ghuslu had suffered injury on his head
due to which he fell down. Thereafter Ghuslu was brought to his home in
injured condition. As it was late in the night, he was kept at home and on the
next day he was taken to Bariatu Hospital for treatment. In course of
treatment Ghuslu Munda died on 13.08.2008 at about 8-9 O' clock in the day
time. After the death, police arrived and had recorded the statement of the
informant. She identified the appellants who were present in Court. In her
cross examination, she stated that on 11.08.2008 the sowing work in the
village was over. On that day feast (khan paan) was arranged at Ghuslu
Munda's home. The feast was over by 08.30 p.m. After taking food everyone
went to their home. Chotku had also gone to his home. Ghuslu had not
returned from the house of Chotku. She has further stated that on hearing
alarm, she came out from her house and saw the occurrence. At the time of
occurrence they were five persons present there. She has denied the
suggestion that Ghuslu was intoxicated having consumed liquor.
P.W.4 Ghasia Munda has stated that the occurrence took place
on 11.08.2008. It was 10 O' Clock at night. On that day sowing was
completed. On the occasion of completion of sowing, feast was arranged at
deceased's home for the entire village. Chutku Lohra worked in the fields of
the deceased. Feast was over at around 10 O' clock at night. Many persons
had returned to their home after having food. Chutku Lohra after having his
food was going to his home at about 10 O' clock and on his way he was
intercepted by the appellants. They asked him as to where he was going at
night. On hearing the voice of Chutku, Ghuslu came out and told the
appellants that Chutku was working at his home and why they are
threatening him. Thereafter the appellants assaulted the deceased with lathi
due to which he fell unconscious. As it was late at night, the deceased was
not taken to the hospital. On 12.08.2008 Ghuslu Munda was taken to Bariatu
Hospital for treatment and in course of treatment, on 13.08.2008, he died.
He has stated that the police had prepared the inquest report in his presence
and he had put his signature over the carbon copy of the inquest report,
which has been marked as Exhibit 1. He has identified the appellants who
were present in Court. In his cross examination, he stated that after the feast
was over, many persons had left. He along with the deceased were
accompanying Chutku Lohra to his home. When they were returning from
the house of Chutku, the occurrence took place. He stated that hadia-daru
(liquor) was not served in the feast and the deceased did not consumed
hadia-daru. Appellant Nandu Munda had assaulted the deceased on his
head with lathi. Thereafter the appellants fled from there. At the time of
assault he only was present there. On raising hulla many persons came and
took the deceased to his home. He denied the suggestion that the deceased
was intoxicated at the time of occurrence and he himself fell and suffered
injury. He denied the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.
P.W.5 Lahru Munda has stated that the occurrence is of
11.08.2008. It was 10 O' clock at night. On that day it was the last day of
sowing work of the deceased. The sowing work was carried by the women
team (Mahila Dal). After sowing was over, the members of mahila samiti had
feast at Ghuslu Munda's home. The feast was over at around 10 O' clock at
night. Chutku Lohra was going to his home after taking food. On his way,
appellants asked him as to where he was going. On hearing hulla, deceased
came there. He told the appellants that Chutku works at his home and why
are they quarreling with him. Thereafter the appellants assaulted the
deceased with lathi on temporal region. Due to the assault, deceased fell
down unconscious. Next day morning the deceased was taken to Bariatu
Hospital and he was admitted there. In course of treatment on the next
morning at around 8 O' clock, the deceased died. Police had prepared the
inquest report in carbon copy and he had signed over the same, which has
been marked as Exhibit 1/1. He identified the appellants who were present in
Court. In cross examination, he stated that in the feast there were 15-20
persons. He stated that Chutku had left after having food. This witness has
stated that he, after taking food, had left before 10 O' clock. On hearing
hulla, he had come to the place of occurrence. He had reached amidst the
quarrel and before the assault was made. During quarrel around 10 persons
had arrived there. Ghuslu's wife, wife of this witness, Panchami Devi,
Pancham Kumari, Goma Mundain, Mongla Mundain were amongst them. He
denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence. He denied the
suggestion that he had heard about the occurrence from others. He denied
the suggestion that he is giving false evidence.
P.W.6 Dr. Aman Kumar is the doctor, who had conducted
postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He found the
following:-
There is no evidence of any apparent mechanical injury
externally.
Internal - There is diffuse contusion of whole scalp with
presence of crack fracture involving left tempero perieto frontal bone and
extending continuously into right fronto temporal bone. There is presence of
extradural blood and blood clot 15 x 8 c.m. over both frontal and left
temporal region of brain. There is contusion of brain with presence of
subdural blood and blood clot on both sides of brain. Internal organs are
congested.
He opined that the above noted injuries (internal) are
antemortem, caused by hard and blunt substance. The death is due to head
injuries and its complications.
Postmortem report was marked Exhibit 2.
P.W.7 Chotku Lohra has stated that the occurrence took place
about a year ago. Occurrence had taken place in front of the house of Ashok
Jee. It was around 10 O' clock at night. He was doing work for the deceased.
It was last sowing on that day. He got delayed in having food there. After
taking food, he was going to his home. On his way, appellants started
scolding him as to why he is roaming at night. Thereafter they said that they
will beat him, on which he screamed. On hearing such scream, deceased
came and asked the appellants as to why they are scolding this witness as
he has worked with him for the entire day and after taking food he is going.
On this, the appellants started assaulting the deceased by lathi (heavy stick).
The deceased sustained lathi blow on the right side of his head. The lathi
blow was given by appellant Nandu Munda. Due to injury deceased fell
unconscious. On raising hulla, people gathered there and took the deceased
to his home. On the next day morning deceased was taken to Bariatu
R.M.C.H. and in course of treatment on 13th the deceased died. This witness
identified the appellants, who were present in Court. In course of cross
examination, he stated that he had seen the appellants beating the
deceased. He stated that with one danda blow by the appellants the
deceased fell. He denied the suggestion that he has given false evidence as
he is a servant of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that he has
falsely implicated the appellants in this case.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, appellants were
examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein
they denied the charges and claimed to be innocent. They also pleaded to
examine witnesses in their defence.
D.W.1 Dubi Munda stated that the appellants were engaged for
work at his fields. They came on 09.08.2008 and stayed for five days. They
used to work in the fields from 08.00 a.m. till 06.00 p.m. and thereafter they
used to come to his home and they never used to go anywhere. He stated
that so long they stayed at their home, they never went even for ½ hour to
any place leaving him.
D.W.2 Sunna Munda stated that the appellants stayed in his
village from 9th till 14th in 2008. It was ashadh month. They had come to work
in the fields of Dubi Munda. They used to work with him in the fields. During
9th to 14th they both worked in the fields of Dubi Munda and stayed at his
residence and even for 10-15 minutes also they never went out of the village
and this witness always remained with them.
D.W.3 Somara Munda stated that the appellants had gone to
the house of Dubi Munda for purposes of working in the fields. They used to
go to the fields morning at 07.00 a.m. and remain there till 05.00 p.m. This
witness stated that his field is nearby the fields of Dubi Munda.
D.W.4 Gansha Munda has stated that he had gone to
Hensabeda on 09.08.2008 at 8 O' clock in the morning for purposes of
working for Dubi Munda and at 5 O' clock in the evening he used to go to his
home. He stated that the appellants also used to work with him in the fields
of Dubi Munda. He stated that they worked in the fields of Dubi Munda from
09.08.2008 till 15.08.2008. He stated that during this period, he never went
out.
10. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the parties and
after going through the evidence, by a Judgment of Conviction dated 18th
January, 2014 and Order of Sentence dated 23rd January, 2014 passed in
Sessions Trial No.70 of 2009, has held the appellants guilty and convicted
and sentenced them for the offence as detailed in paragraph 1 hereinbefore.
11. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence, the
appellants have preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in
paragraph 2 of this judgment.
12. We have gone through the evidence and the entire records.
13. After going through the evidence led by the prosecution, we find
that P.W.2, who is the informant, is the eye witness. She narrated the real
fact, which she had seen. As per her, it is these two appellants, who had
assaulted the deceased with stick. Appellants were in a state of intoxication.
Similar is the statement of P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5. The fact of assault upon
the deceased by these appellants have been proved by them. From their
statements, we find that this entire occurrence had taken place in the spur of
moment, when these appellants were under the influence of liquor. The fact,
which is evident from the evidence is that the occurrence was not pre-
planned. Further, the injury report also corroborates the ocular evidence of
these witnesses. There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses, which
forces us to conclude that they not reliable. So far as defence witnesses are
concerned, we find that their statements are cryptic and stereo typed and
their statement does not inspite too much confidence. The manner of
occurrence is in detail, as narrated by the prosecution witnesses does have
credence and is, thus, kept by us in higher pedestal than the defence
witnesses.
14. Now the question is on the evidence led by the prosecution,
whether the appellants can be punished under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code or not. To deal with this issue, we have gone through Sections
299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 299 and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code read as
under:-
Section 299. Culpable homicide.-
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention
of causing death, or with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death,
commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustrations:-
(a) A lays sticks and tur over a pit, with the inention of
thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that
death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the
ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A
has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A,
intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause
Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and
kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has
committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it,
kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he
was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful
act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did
not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act
that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1. - A person who causes bodily injury to
another who is laboring under a disorder, disease or
bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that
other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2. - Where death is caused by bodily injury,
the person who causes such bodily injury shall be
deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting
to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might
have been prevented.
Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of child in the
mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to
culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if
any part of that child has been brought forth, though the
child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Section 300. Murder. - Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or-
2ndly. - If it is done with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
3rdly. - If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
cause death, or -
4thly. - If the person committing the act knows that it is
so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability,
cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Exception 1. - When culpable homicide is not murder. -
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst
deprived of the power of self-control by grave and
sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who
gave the provocation or causes the death of any other
person by mistake or accident. The above exception is
subject to the following provisions:-
First. - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily
provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or
doing harm to any person.
Secondly. - That the provocation is not given by anything
done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the
lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly. - That the provocation is not given by anything
done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and
sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to
murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power
given to him by law and causes the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right of defence
without premeditation, and without any intention of doing
more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such
defence.
Exception 3. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant
acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the
powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing
an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such
public servant and without ill-will towards the person
whose death is caused.
Exception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the
heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the
offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a
cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party
offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5. - Culpable homicide is not murder when the
person whose death is caused, being above the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death
with his own consent.
15. As per exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, a
culpable homicidal is not a murder, if it is committed without premeditation in
a sudden fight in the heat of a passion upon a sudden quarrel. Thus, if a
culpable homicidal is committed without any premeditation in a heat of
passion upon sudden quarrel and the offender does not take any undue
advantage nor acts in a cruel manner, the said death will not covered under
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
16. From the evidence of this case, as held earlier, we find that on a
hit of moment, when these appellants questioned the witness Chotku Lohra
as to where he was going at the death of the night, deceased and his wife
came out and stated that Chotku is working for them and he is going home
and he should not disturbed. On this, the appellants assaulted the deceased
on his head. This clearly suggests that the entire occurrence occurred on a
spur of moment and without any pre-meditation. Thus, on the facts of this
case, we find that this case will fall within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code. If the case is within Exception 4 of Section 300 of the
Indian Penal Code, we hold that the same is covered under Section 304 Part
II of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code reads as
under: -
304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. - Whoever commits culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, shall be punished with 1
[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the
act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
death, but without any intention to cause death, or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
17. Thus, considering what has been held above, we set aside the
conviction of the appellants under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and
convert the same into a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian
Penal Code. So far as the sentence awarded to the appellants is concerned,
we are of the opinion that sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for
the conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code is
sufficient.
18. Since the appellants have already remained in custody for more
than ten years and, thus, they have already served the sentence under
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, this Court directs the above
named appellants to be released forthwith from custody, if not required in
any other case. This Criminal Appeal is, thus, partly allowed. Pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
19. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned
forthwith along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Subhash Chand, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, the 10th June, 2024
Kumar/Cp-03
