Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10606 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Unknown vs The State Of Jharkhand on 25 November, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                         Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 795 of 2002

[Against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2002 and order of sentence dated
01.10.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 161 of
2000/21 of 2001 (arising out of Jamatara P.S. Case No. 195 of 1999 & G.R. No. 461
of 1999)].

      Manoj Pujhar, S/o Late Lali Pujhar, R/o Village Jharkahi, PS Sarath District
      Deoghar, at present Son-in-law of Gobar Pujhar of village-Nengratanr, PS
      Jamtara, District-Jamtara             ....                 Appellant
                                Versus
      The State of Jharkhand.               .....                Respondent
                                  PRESENT
                 SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

.....

      For the Appellant         :    Mr. N.P. Choudhary, Advocate
      For the State             :    Mr. Azeemuddin, APP
                                 .....
Dated 25.11.2024.               JUDGMENT

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State at length.

1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 30.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 01.10.2002, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Jamtara, in Sessions Case No. 161 of 2000/21 of 2001 (arising out of Jamatara P.S. Case No. 195 of 1999 & G.R. No. 461 of 1999) whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The prosecution story is based on the statement of PW-5 who is the son of the deceased. He stated in the FIR that after taking food, his father was going to the house of his elder son, who was residing in a different place in the village. When his father (deceased) reached near the house of the appellant, this appellant started assaulting him with stick and flung him over the stone, as a result of which he died. This informant had seen the occurrence and went to save his father, but he was also assaulted by the appellant. The genesis of the occurrence is that two and half months ago, goat of the deceased had grazed the vegetables of this appellant, thus the appellant being enraged had assaulted his father.

3. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jamatara P.S. Case No. 195 of 1999 under Sections 302 and 323 of the IPC was registered against the appellant.

4. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet and cognizance was taken and the appellant/accused was put on trial for the offence under Sections 302, 341 and 323 of the IPC.

5. In order to prove the case, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution and relevant documents have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibits. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which appellant pleaded not guilty.

6. The Trial Court after considering the evidence and the materials on record convicted the appellant for committing offence punishable under Sections 302, 341 and 323 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that there was no intention on the part of this appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He stated that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. Though the doctor has opined that the injury is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, but incidence took place in the spur of moment over a past dispute and therefore the case will at best come under Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC. PW-2 and PW-3 are also not an eye-witness to the commission of murder and PW-5 being interested witness, the son of the deceased, his evidence should be scrutinized with great caution.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that PW-5 is an injured witness.

He was also assaulted by this appellant which is evident from the injury report. Being injured witness, there cannot be any doubt that the appellant had assaulted him. He further submits that the doctor found (on deceased) that because of the assault, there was fracture on 2nd, 3rd and 4th rib fractured along with cartilage. Doctor also found that sternum was fractured and its pointed fracture fragment punctured the heart at three points projected towards the heart which was sufficient to cause death. Thus, in view of the overwhelming evidence against the appellant, the he does not deserve acquittal.

9. After going through the evidence, we find that there are important witnesses in this case who are PW-2, PW-3 and PW-5. PW-5 is the informant, he stated that his father was going to his brother's house and when he was crossing the house of this appellant, he started assaulting him with stick and then flung him over the stone as a result of which he sustained injury near temple. This witness also tried to save his father, but he was also assaulted. He states that his father died immediately. He has exhibited his fardbeyan and identified the appellant. From the evidence of PW-5, we do not find any material to disbelieve him. He is not

only an eye-witness to the occurrence of assault upon his father, but also an injured witness as he himself sustained injury by the hand of this appellant when he tried to save his father. The doctor PW-7 had examined PW-5 (informant/injured) and found swelling and abrasion on his palm, thigh and knee joints. The injuries were simple in nature and caused by hard and blunt substance. The injury of P.W5 corroborates with his oral evidence as he stated that he was assaulted by the appellant on his legs and other parts of the body while to save his father. Being an injured witness, he has to be kept in higher pedestal as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Sayeed Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2010) 10 SCC 259.

10. The presence of PW-5 at the place of occurrence and the part of the occurrence i.e., an altercation between the appellant and P.W5 has been corroborated by P.W2 & 3. They stated that they had heard and seen this appellant quarrelling with PW-5 and assaulting him. They also stated that the father of PW-5 was lying over stone when the quarrel was going on. This statement of PWs 2 &3 substantiates the fact that the appellant has assaulted P.W5 as he was present there to save his father. Thus, we find sufficient material on the point that the informant i.e., PW-5 was present at the place of occurrence and he was assaulted while he was trying to save his father.

11. The deceased died homicidal death. The deceased was found lying at the place of occurrence which is evident from the statement of PWs 2, 3 & 5. Their consistent statement is that they had seen the deceased lying dead at the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is also substantiated which is in front of the house of this appellant. From the evidence of the doctor, it is found that deceased died as homicidal.

12. Now, the question is whether this homicidal death is said to be murder or not?

From the evidence, we find that the assault had taken place in front of the house of this appellant when the deceased was going to his son's house, who was residing at the different location of the village. It is not the case where this appellant had gone to the house of the deceased with an intention to assault him. Further, the assault was by a stick. Perhaps the immediate cause of death is puncture of pericardium which congested the chambers of the heart and the fracture of sternum as the doctor found that the fragments punctured the heart on three points. As noticed earlier, there was no fracture of scalp. Thus, we find that because of the assault the sternum was fractured and punctured the heart resulted in his death.

13. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder. There are four circumstances mentioned in the said definition which will bring a culpable homicide within the definition of murder, if those conditions are fulfilled. There are exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC which are five in number. Exception 4 provides that 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 having taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner.

14. After going through the evidence, we are of the opinion that this case will fall under exception (4) of Section 300 of IPC as narrated earlier. It is not this appellant who had gone to the house of the deceased to assault him. He was sitting outside his house when deceased was crossing his house then suddenly this appellant with a stick assaulted him. The reason of the assault is that the goat of this deceased had grazed the vegetables of this appellant thus, he was enraged. The assault was also by sticks and the death occurred due to fracture of sternum and fractured part punctured the heart. This injury cannot be said to be conceived by the appellant while assaulting the deceased. He did not have any knowledge that this assault would cause death in the manner in which it has been caused. Thus, we are of the view that charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not proved, rather this is a case of committing offence punishable under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code.

15. Thus, appellant's conviction is converted from Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 (II) of the IPC. Since he has served sentence for more than ten years, he is sentenced for the term of imprisonment which he has already undergone.

16. With the aforesaid modification, this criminal appeal, is hereby, partly allowed.

17. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

18. Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

(Ananda Sen, J.)

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 25.11.2024.

Anjali/Pawan