Jharkhand High Court
Etwa @ Farul Mundari @ Farul Etwa Mundari ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 1 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1588 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 16.11.2016 and order of sentence
dated 18.11.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum,
Chaibasa in Sessions Trial 86 of 2011]
Etwa @ Farul Mundari @ Farul Etwa Mundari son of Late Ghasia Mundari
resident of Village Kansro, Tola Masangu, P.O. & P.S. Keraikella, District
West Singhbhum, Jharkhand .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Gaurav Priyadarshi, Advocate
Ms. Twinkle Rani, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 26.09.2024 Pronounced On: 01.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. The sole appellant is before this Court against
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302 of the IPC.
2. Informant is the brother of the deceased. As per the FIR, his younger
sister Mangri Mudari was married to the appellant ten years ago. On
09.08.2010, he received information that his sister had been killed by the
appellant with Tangi (sharp edged weapon). On this information, when he
reached there he got to know that his sister had been assaulted by the handle of
the Tangi resulting in her death. The incidence took place in the paddy field and
at that time, his mother-in-law, Somwari Mudari and Mariyam Mundari were
also present.
3. On the basis of fardbeyan, Bandagaon (Keraikella) P.S. Case No. 21/2010
was registered. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge
sheet. Appellant was put on trial for offence of committing murder of his wife.
4. Altogether 15 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and
relevant documents including FIR, post mortem report and seizure list were
adduced into evidence and marked as exhibit.
5. Direct eye witness to the incidence includes P.W. 2, who is none other
than the mother of the accused and has deposed that her son arrived at the place
of occurrence at 4 p.m. and struck his wife with a Tangi. There is not much
room for argument for the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant.
Testimony of P.W. 2 is corroborated by P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, who are also close
relatives of the appellant. Their testimony is in accord with medical evidence.
This is a somewhat unique case where the golden character of a mother comes
to fore and she testifies against her son for the homicidal assault committed on
her daughter-in-law. Her testimony is of sterling quality.
6. I do not find any infirmity in the finding of learned trial Court that it was
the appellant who caused the death by inflicting blows with the Tangi.
7. Main plank of the argument on behalf of the appellant is that the act of
the appellant will not come within the definition of Section 300 of the IPC as
he had no intention to cause death which will be evident from the fact that he
did not use the sharp-edged part of the axe in the assault. It has specifically been
stated in the FIR that it was the handle of the Tangi which was used in the
assault.
8. Learned counsel on behalf of State argues that as many as five lacerated
wounds were found on the dead body, which included one on the right side of
chest which resulted in the death. The nature of injury was sufficient to cause
death and therefore, it will come within the definition of murder under Section
300 of the IPC.
Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question as to when a case will
fall under Section 302 of the IPC, held in Mahesh Balmiki @ Munna v. State
of M.P., (2000) 1 SCC 319
"9. Adverting to the contention of a single blow, it may be pointed out that
there is no principle that in all cases of a single blow Section 302 IPC is
not attracted. A single blow may, in some cases, entail conviction under
Section 302 IPC, in some cases under Section 304 IPC and in some other
cases under Section 326 IPC. The question with regard to the nature of
offence has to be determined on the facts and in the circumstances of each
case. The nature of the injury, whether it is on the vital or non-vital part of
the body, the weapon used, the circumstances in which the injury is caused
and the manner in which the injury is inflicted are all relevant factors
which may go to determine the required intention or knowledge of the
offender and the offence committed by him."
9. In the present case the autopsy surgeon (P.W. 11) found the following ante
mortem injuries: -
External:
i. Right arm lacerated wound size 4" x 3"
ii. Lacerated wound on right side of chest 3" x 3"
iii. Lacerated wound on left side of chest 4" x 3"
iv. Lacerated wound on left side of back 4" x 4"
v. Lacerated wound on left shoulder 4" x 3"
Doctor opined that death was caused due to blunt injury of chest and abdomen
caused by hard and blunt substance.
10. From the above injuries, it will be apparent that all the injuries except
the two on chest can be said to be on non-vital part of the body. It is also
significant to note that although a sharp aged weapon was wielded by the
accused, but in the assault the handle of the same was used and not of the sharp
part. There is no evidence that there was history of past marital discord. Taking
these factors into account, appellant cannot be credited with requisite intention
or knowledge to commit the murder of the deceased. His acts were cruel, but
they fall short of the legal definition of murder, but shall invite conviction under
Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
11. For the reasons discussed above the Judgment of conviction under
Section 302 is converted to that under Section 304 Part II IPC. He has already
served a sentence of imprisonment of 14 years therefore a sentence of
imprisonment for the period already undergone shall meet the ends of justice.
With this modification of finding and sentence the 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, 1st October, 2024
AFR/Anit
