Jharkhand High Court
Ratanlal Tamsoy Son Of Mathura Tamsoy vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 472 of 2002
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 03.08.2002 and order of
sentence dated 05.08.2002 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions
Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 259 of 2000]
1. Ratanlal Tamsoy son of Mathura Tamsoy
2. Singrai Tamson son of Late Tungia Tamsoy
3. Mitai Tamsoy son of Mathura Tamsoy
4. Tumpu Tamsoy son of Takura Tamsoy
All are residents of Village Jangiburu, P.O. Panga, P.S. Manjhari,
District West SInghbhum (Jharkhand)
.... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellants
: Mr. R.P. Gupta, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Priya Shrestha, Special P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 25.10.2024 Pronounced On: 29.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Appellants are before this Court in appeal
against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections
302/34 and 201 of the IPC.
2. Out of the four appellants, Tumpu Tamsoy died during the
pendency of the appeal and a report regarding it has been received from
Officer-in-Charge, Manjhari P.S., Chaibasa. In view of the death of the
appellant, appeal preferred by him stands abated.
3. Informant of the case is the wife of deceased. As per the FIR, on
04.05.2000, in the evening at about 4 O'clock, her husband Pustam
Tamsoy had gone to purchase grocery from Rankui Bazar, but did not
return thereafter. On the next morning, Kishan Tamsoy, who was her
co-villager, informed that while returning from the market he had seen
that these appellants were assaulting the deceased on the road near
Doglakocha jungle. After getting this information, she went to meet the
appellants, but they were not present at their home. His dead body was
found in the drain near the Jungle with marks of injury over his head
and blood-stained marks were also seen on the road.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan, Manjhari P.S. Case No.9/2000 was
registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC. Police on investigation
found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the appellants,
who were put on trial under these Sections.
5. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the
ground that the same is based on the solitary account of P.W. 2- Kishan
Tamsoy, who has claimed himself to be the eye witness of the incidence.
His testimony does not appear to be natural as there was material
contradiction in his statement. Further, he was on inimical term with the
appellants on account of land dispute. P.W. 2 has also deposed that there
was land dispute between appellants and the deceased. He claims to be
the eye witness to the assault, but he neither intervened nor informed
the wife of the deceased after returning to the village on the same
evening.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and
sentence.
7. Deceased died a homicidal death is amply borne out by the Post
Mortem Examination Report, in which the following ante mortem
injuries were found: -
I. Lacerated wound over occipital part of head 2"x ¼" x ¼".
II. Lacerated wound over face and right side extending to right
parietal region 4"x ¼" x ½".
III. Bruise over chest at sternum and extended to both sides.
On dissection following injuries were found: -
I. Fracture of right parietal bone.
II. Fracture of lower part of sternum.
III. Fracture of rib on right side 3rd, 4th and 5th.
IV. Fracture of rib on left side 4th and 5th.
Doctor opined that the death was caused by above injuries over
his head and chest which were caused by hard and blunt substance.
8. As per FIR, the only witness to the incidence is P.W. 2- Kishan
Tamsoy. He has stated that while he was returning from Rankui Bazar,
he saw Pustam Tamsoy being assaulted by the appellants near
Doglakocha Jungle. He also identified all the four accused persons in
dock. It has also been deposed by him that they assaulted him with a
piece of stone. Nothing specific has come in his cross-examination to
discredit the veracity of his account. The homicidal death of the
deceased is established by the post-mortem examination report proved
by the Doctor (P.W. 4). This witness (P.W. 2) is an unlettered, rustic tribal
man and nothing significant has come in cross-examination to disbelieve
his account. Defence has failed to impeach his credit. It has come in the
testimony of P.W. 2 that there was previous land dispute for which the
deceased was assaulted in a pre-planned manner by the appellants
resulting in his death. The extensive nature of injury sustained by the
deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, discloses the intention of the appellants to cause the death of the
deceased.
Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any
infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence.
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, 29th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
