Jharkhand High Court
Balbhadra Puraan Son Of Late Puran ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 19 November, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1216 of 2016
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2016 and order of
sentence dated 05.08.2016 passed by learned District & Additional
Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No.447 of 2011]
Balbhadra Puraan son of Late Puran Puraan, resident of Village Ujamba,
P.O. & P.S. Arki, District Khunti .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr.R.S. Mazumdar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Nishant Roy, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
For the Informant : Mr.Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 28.10.2024 Pronounced On: 19.11.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is before this Court in
appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section
302/34 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the wife of the deceased. As per the FIR on 24.02.2011
in the morning, the deceased had a hot exchange with this appellant and
his father- Puran Puraan on a minor issue of hay stack for cattle. Her
husband (deceased) after the tiff, went for his work and while he was
returning, he was accosted by the appellant and his father. On the
command by his father- Puran Puraan, the appellant indiscriminately
assaulted the deceased with a bamboo stick on his head. The informant
was present there and her remonstration was not paid heed by the
accused persons, as a result of the assault, her husband died on spot.
3. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Arki P.S. case No.10/11 was
registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against this appellant and his
father- Puran Puraan. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted
and both the accused persons were put on trial for conjointly committing
murder of Jagannath Puran.
4. Accused- Puran Puraan was absent in trial since long and therefore,
his trial was separated.
5. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined on behalf of the
prosecution and one witness Chandra Shekhar Mehta was examined as
C.W. 1 who has proved the inquest report. Apart from the prosecution
evidence, relevant documents including post-mortem examination report,
inquest report and fardbeyan have been proved and marked as exhibits.
6. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant that independent witnesses (P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4)
have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile. All
the witnesses are close family members of the deceased and their
testimony suffers from vital contradictions.
7. It is further argued that there was no past enmity and as per the
prosecution case, the incidence took place on the spur of moment and the
weapon of offence was a green bamboo stick. These facts and the nature
of weapon allegedly used, do not disclose intention to cause death and at
bes,t it will be a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
8. Homicidal death has been objectively established by the Doctor
(P.W. 8) who found the following external injuries over the dead body:-
I. A lacerated wound size 3" x 1" x bone deep at left side of forehead.
II. A lacerated wound size 1.5" x 0.5" x bone deep at lateral end of left
side of eyebrow on the forehead.
III. A lacerated wound size 3" x 1" x bone deep at right side of exterior
part of head.
IV. A lacerated wound size 5" x 2" x bone deep at upper surface of
posterior part of head.
On dissection, skull bone of head was found fractured. There was
blood and blood clot in middle part of brain material. Cause of death was
due to shock and hemorrhage on account of abovementioned injuries
caused by hard and blunt substance.
9. The Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) has given the description of the
place of occurrence in para 6 of his deposition to be situated in village
Ujiumba in front of the house of Puran Puraan and Uma Charan Puraan
on the village road. This corroborates the testimony of witnesses
regarding place of occurrence.
10. Prosecution case rests on the testimony of P.W. 5- Sheela Devi,
sister-in-law (Gotni) of the deceased, P.W. 6, brother of the deceased and
P.W. 7, the informant or wife of the deceased.
11. Wife of the deceased (P.W. 7) has deposed that on 24.02.2011 at 6 O'
clock in the evening, she was at the door of her house when she saw her
husband returning by bicycle. When he reached near the house of the
appellant, the appellant struck her husband with bamboo stick over his
head and caused his death. The witness has been cross examined at
length, but the defence has failed to elicit any contradiction in her
account. As the incidence took place in the village therefore, she can be
regarded as a natural witness to the occurrence. Her testimony is
consistent with the version as given by her in the fardbeyan. Her
testimony is also corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 5 and P.W. 6.
Their evidence cannot be discarded only for the reason that they are the
close family relative of the deceased.
12. From the testimony of P.W. 6 at para 12 and 24 wherein he has
stated that when he arrived at the place of occurrence, he saw a large
crowd gathered and Jagannath was lying on the ground near his bicycle.
From this, it appears that he had not himself seen the actual occurrence,
but arrived there soon after the incidence.
13. P.W. 5 has deposed in para 13 that by the time when she went to
the place of occurrence, a large crowed had already gathered there. In
para 20, she has stated that after the incidence, the accused persons fled in
north direction.
14. What can be construed from the joint reading of the testimony of
witnesses is that on the day of incidence, the deceased had a tiff with the
appellant and his father over the issue of stealing of hay stack and while
he was returning after his days' work by his bicycle, he was intercepted
by the accused persons. On the command of Puran Puraan, appellant
assaulted the deceased causing fatal injuries over his head, resulting in
his instantaneous death.
15. Intention is a subjective element and a man is presumed to intend
the natural consequence of his act. Judicial determination of culpability
for a criminal act involves two stages. First, whether the accused had
caused the injury, and the second is the nature of injury. First part is
subjective determination on the basis of evidence on record whether
direct or circumstantial and the second is the nature of injury inflicted.
Once an accused is proved to have caused injury which is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, he cannot get away with the
plea that he had no intention to cause death.
16. In the present case, it is proved by direct eye witness's account that
it was this appellant who had inflicted injuries on the body of the
deceased as discussed in the foregoing paragraphs. Injuries being on the
vital part of the body resulted in fracture of skull causing hemorrhage,
can be said to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death. Natural corollary is that the appellant was actuated with the
requisite intention to cause death of the deceased. I do not find any
infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence under Section 302 of
the IPC.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned
along with a copy of this judgment.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Ananda Sen, J. I agree.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated, 19th November, 2024
AFR/Anit
