Jharkhand High Court
Saheb Ram Manjhi Aged About 42 Years Son ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 16 October, 2024
Author: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Gautam Kumar Choudhary
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 279 of 2018
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2018 and order of sentence
dated 06.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Spl. F.T.C.
(C.A.W.), Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 182 of 2017]
1. Saheb Ram Manjhi aged about 42 years son of Late Gobardhan Manjhi
2. Sahdeo Manjhi @ Sahdeo Soren, aged about 48 years son of Late Babu
Ram Majhi
3. Ganesh Marandi aged about 26 years son of Late Bhaskar Manjhi
4. Ram Das Manjhi aged about 40 years son of Late Laagan Manjhi
All are residents of Village Katarbera, P.O. Chargi, P.S. Petarwar,
District Bokaro .... .... .... Appellants
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellants
: Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 30.09.2024 Pronounced On: 16.10.2024
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Since we are already hearing the main Criminal
Appeal, I.A. No.747 of 2024 is dismissed as infructuous.
Heard the parties.
2. Appellants are before this Court against the Judgment of conviction and
sentence passed under Sections 302/34, 450/34 and 120-B of the IPC.
3. Informant of the case is Rituraj Marandi, son of the deceased. As per the
FIR, on 10.02.2017 at 10.30 at night, the appellants entered into the house of
the informant from the back side door and struck his father who was sleeping
in the verandah with Farsa and critically injured him. At the shrieks of his
father, the informant on opening the door slightly, saw Saheb Ram Manjhi
armed with Farsa, Babu Ram Manjhi with Tangi, Ganesh Marandi and Ram
Das Manjhi to have conjointly assaulted and injured his father. On alarm being
raised, they fled away. While being taken for treatment to Bokaro, deceased
succumbed to his injury.
4. On the basis of written report, Petarwar P.S. Case No.5/17 was registered
against the appellants under Sections 452, 302, 120B/34 of the IPC. After
investigation, charge sheet was submitted and the appellants were put on trial.
Altogether ten witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and
relevant document including written report, post mort report have been adduced
into evidence marked as exhibits.
5. Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that
there are vital contradictions in the testimony of witnesses which casts serious
doubt on the account of eye witnesses claiming to have seen the occurrence.
There are contradictions in the post- mortem examination report and the inquest
report. P.W. 2 was not present in the house in the night of occurrence and was
working as labour at Ranchi along with D.W. 1 and D.W. 2 who have deposed
that on that day informant was at Ranchi.
6. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.
7. There is no delay in institution of FIR as the incidence took place in the
night on 10.02.2017 and the FIR was lodged on the next day on 11.02.2017.
8. Place of occurrence as per Informant (P.W. 2) of the case, who is the son
of the deceased, is the house of the deceased. Other witnesses have also
consistently stated that the incidence took place in the house at night and this
part of testimony of witnesses, has remained undemolished in the cross-
examination. P.W. 2 in the cross-examination has deposed that they had two
houses. One was a Pucca house and adjacent to it, another was a tiled house. In
para 11, he has deposed that his father was sleeping in the tiled house in
verandah. Evidence regarding the place of occurrence has been corroborated
and established in the testimony of Investigating Officer (P.W. 9) in para 5 and
6. It has been deposed that the place of occurrence was the house of the
informant.
9. Hopni Devi (P.W. 1), is the elder sister of the deceased and was resident
of the same house, becomes a natural witness to the incidence. She has deposed
that after the death of her husband, since about 30 years she had been living in
her parental home. At 9-10 O' clock, she was sleeping in her room and woke-
up on hearing the sound of the door being opened. She saw from the hole in the
door that four persons had entered into the house. There was electric light and
she could identify the appellants who had intruded into the house. Saheb Ram
was holding a farsa, Sahdeo a tangi, Ramdas was also having a farsa and
Ganesh was with a knife. She saw her brother being stabbed by them. At this,
she started raising alarm. It has also been deposed by her that at that time, Ritu
Marandi and Lilmuni were also present there. In para-12 of her cross-
examination, she deposed that she could see the incidence from the gap in the
door in the western side. She saw them fleeing from the place of occurrence.
10. P.W. 4 is the wife of the deceased and she is also a natural witness as she
was living there. She has deposed that she heard the moaning cries at which we
came out and saw the appellants variously armed with dangerous weapons.
When she came out, the appellants started fleeing away. She found her husband
in an injured condition and was profusely bleeding. In para-17, she has deposed
that her son- Ritu Manjhi (informant) was serving in petrol pump at Ranchi and
had come last evening at 7 O'clock. None of these witnesses have been
confronted with their earlier statement to elicit any contradiction in their
account. They are close family relatives and were present in the house at night
at the time when the incidence took place. There is no cogent reason to
disbelieve their account. The argument on behalf of the informant that there was
no hole in the door for looking at incidence, is not of any significance.
11. Her testimony is corroborated by P.W. 5, who has deposed that he heard
the scream of Hopni Devi (P.W. 1) and when he went there, he saw Jeetan
Manjhi to be lying on the cot in an injured condition. Hopni Devi narrated to
him the name of appellants Saheb Ram, Sahdeo and Ram Das to have assaulted
the deceased and fled away. Her oral account can be regarded as direct within
the meaning of Section 60 of the Evidence Act, as she arrived there after hearing
the cries of the deceased and then immediately went to the place of occurrence.
He has disclosed the motive for offence as the deceased was a Haram (a village
Panch) and used to take part in the meetings. Testimony of P.W. 6 is also on the
same line as he arrived on hulla at the place of occurrence which was the house
of Hopni Devi. As soon as he arrived at the place of occurrence he saw Lilmuni
(P.W. 4) was crying saying that appellants had stabbed Jeetan Manjhi.
Testimony of P.W. 7 and P.W. 8 are also on the same line.
12. On reading the testimony of all these witnesses, there cannot be any doubt
regarding the factum of incidence in which the appellants entered into the house
of the informant and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting
weapon like axe and tangi, resulting in instantaneous death of the deceased.
Autopsy Surgeon (P.W. 3) found four incised wounds on head like maxillary
region, mastoid region. Doctor opined that cause of death was head injury.
Medical evidence corroborates the oral testimony of the witnesses.
13. When a criminal act is committed by plurality of persons in furtherance
of common intention, it is immaterial what individual part was played by each
one of them, so long there is evidence that they participated in the commission
of the offence in furtherance of common intention. Under Section 33 of the IPC
word "Act" includes a series of act. Thus, "criminal act" under Section 34 of
the IPC, includes not one but a series of acts. Those who participate in any of
the series of the act in furtherance of the common intention shall be vicariously
liable for the principal act. Law on the point has been reiterated in Lallan Rai
v. State of Bihar, (2003) 1 SCC 268
21. In a similar vein the Privy Council in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King
Emperor [Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 : 26 Cri LJ
431] stated the true purport of Section 34 as below: (AIR p. 6)
"[T]he words of Section 34 are not to be eviscerated by reading them in
this exceedingly limited sense. By Section 33 a criminal act in Section 34
includes a series of acts and, further, 'act' includes omission to act, for
example, an omission to interfere in order to prevent a murder being done
before one's very eyes. By Section 37, when any offence is committed by
means of several acts whoever intentionally cooperates in the commission
of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with
any other person, commits that offence. Even if the appellant did nothing
as he stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in crimes as in
other things 'they also serve who only stand and wait'."
14. In the present case, in view of the direct eye witness account that
appellants entered into the house of the informant in the night variously armed
with dangerous weapons, and assaulted the deceased with sharp cutting weapon
resulting in indiscriminate head injury, element of participation in the crime is
established, and it hardly matters who inflicted injury by which weapon being
carried by them.
15. As far as Section 120 B of the IPC is concerned, there is no evidence that
appellants entered into criminal conspiracy to commit the offence. In view of
direct evidence of having participated in the offence, the conviction under
Section 120 B of the IPC was uncalled for particularly when there was no
evidence that before the commission of the offence appellants had hatched a
conspiracy to commit the offence.
16. For the reasons discussed above, I am of the view that prosecution has
proved its case beyond the shadow of all reasonable and probable doubt and
there is not infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the
learned trial Court.
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
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, 16th October, 2024
AFR/Anit
