Jharkhand High Court
Suresh Sahu vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: S.N. Pathak
Bench: S.N.Pathak, Navneet Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 26th July 2001 and order of sentence
dated 27th July 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1996 arising out of Sisai
P.S. Case No. 33 of 1996, G.R. Case No.205 of 1996 by the Court of Learned
Sessions Judge, Gumla, Jharkhand)
-------
1. Suresh Sahu, son of Kashi Nath Sahu,
2. Bhadri Devi, wife of Suresh Sahu,
Both resident of village-Kulangkari, P.S. Sisai, District-Gumla.
--- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- Respondent
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVNEET KUMAR
------
For the Appellants : Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
-------
Dated 9th September 2024
JUDGMENT
Challenge in the appeal:
Both the aforesaid appellants namely Suresh Sahu and Bhadri
Devi have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life for committing murder of one Madhu Sahu by the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 26th July 2001 and order of
sentence dated 27th July 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 213 of 1996
arising out of Sisai P.S. Case No. 33 of 1996 by the Court of Learned
Sessions Judge, Gumla, Jharkhand.
2. At the outset, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the
appellants and by learned APP that originally there were three appellants
namely Suresh Sahu, Naresh Sahu and Bhadri Devi and out of them
appellant no. 2 Naresh Sahu had died during the pendency of this appeal
and accordingly an order was passed by which this appeal got abated
with respect to deceased appellant Naresh Sahu vide Order dated
07.08.2024. Now this appeal is heard with respect to appellant no. 1
Suresh Sahu and re-numbered appellant no. 2 Bhadri Devi.
Prosecution Story:
3. The prosecution case arose in the wake of the fardbeyan given by
one Brinda Devi (P.W.-2) whose statement was recorded by M. Kispotta
of Sisai Police Station in the District of Gumla on 21.03.1996 at 09:45
pm at Referal Hospital, Sisai. The said informant P.W.-2 stated in her
fardbeyan that on 21.3.96 at about 7 P.M. the informant along with her
husband Madhu Sahu returned to her house from Sisai Bazar. It is further
stated that thereafter while they were talking with each other they heard
hulla from the Eastern side of their house. It is further stated that
thereafter she along with her husband went there and saw that Suresh
Sahu and Naresh Sahu were assaulting her son Jagarnath Sahu. It is
further alleged that thereafter she went to the house of Naresh Sahu and
asked her father-in-law for pacifying the dispute between them but he
refused to do so. It is further stated that thereafter, while she was
returning to her house, she saw that Suresh Sahu, Naresh Sahu were
standing in the back of her hosue and by their side Bhadri Devi was also
standing. It is further stated that after reaching to her house she asked her
daughter Dayamuni Kumari for forbidding her father and brother from
coming out of the house because Suresh Sahu, Naresh Sahu are willing
to cut them by Balua.
It is further stated that in spite of aforesaid warning her husband
came out of the house and try to pacify the matter, but in the meantime
Naresh Sahu exhorted Suresh Sahu for killing Madhu Sahu (informant's
husband) by Balua whereupon Bhadri Devi handed over Balua to Suresh
Sahu and Suresh Sahu gave a Balua blow on the neck of Madhu Sahu
due to which he fell down. It is further stated that thereafter Suresh Sahu,
Naresh Sahu and Bhadri Devi fled away. The informant further claims
the occurrence was witnessed by her son Dilip Sahu, daughters
Dayamuni Kumari and Sarita Kumari. It is further stated that at the
earlier occasion Mukund Sahu was killed by Madhu Sahu and Anirudh
2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
Sahu and in revenge of the said occurrence Suresh Sahu, Naresh Sahu
and Bhadri Devi had inflicted injury on her husband Madhu Sahu. It is
further stated that after the incident they have taken the injured to
referral hospital but there he had been declared dead.
Charge and decision of the Trial Court:
4. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Sisai
police instituted a case vide Sisai P.S. Case No. 33/96 dated 21.3.96 and
took up investigation and after completion of the investigation submitted
charge sheet against the accused persons.
5. The then learned C.J.M., Gumla, after perusing the case record
and the case diary, took cognizance for the offences and thereafter, after
compliance of provision u/sec. 207 Cr.P.C committed the case to the
court of Sessions.
6. The learned Trial Court framed charges on 25.04.1997 under
section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants and explained to them in
Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. The learned Trial Court after conducting full-fledged trial passed
the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as aforesaid,
which is under challenge.
8. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned A.P.P. for
the State.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants
9. It is submitted on behalf of the appellants that the learned
Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidences adduced by the
prosecution in view of the fact that there are large number of
contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses who cannot
be relied upon due to their inconsistencies. Further, it has been pointed
out that the very basis of the occurrence was the quarrel between son of
the informant and the accused people and thereafter it is alleged that a
quarrel took place under which the deceased was alleged to have been
killed by the accused appellants. It has further been pointed out that
neither the blood stained soil has been seized nor any cloth of the
deceased has been seized and examined in order to ascertain the guilt of
3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
the appellants and the learned trial Court as such has erred in passing the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and further all
the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution are highly
interested witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased and
therefore their statements in absence of any corroborations by the eye
witnesses cannot be relied upon for the conviction of the appellants.
Further, it has been contended that the occurrence has taken place at
about 7 pm on 21.3.96 in the winter season and there used to be a dark
night and there was no source of light for identification of the appellants
by the informant and the relatives.
Further, it has also been argued that it is an admitted case of the
prosecution that there was only one blow of Balua upon the deceased
whereas the medical report shows two injuries. This itself specifically
clears that the appellants have been falsely implicated due to enmity
which has been admitted by the prosecution witnesses as evident from
the F.I.R. itself where it has been stated by the informant P.W.-2 Brinda
Devi that Mukund Sahu was killed by Madhu Sahu (deceased of the
present case) and Anirudh Sahu and therefore the appellants have taken
revenge by killing the deceased Madhu Sahu because the said Mukund
Sahu was the uncle of Suresh Sahu (appellant no. 1). Further, it has been
argued on behalf of the appellants that utmost it is a case of 304 Part-II
of the IPC in view of the admitted case of the prosecution that at first
there was a dispute between the accused persons and the son of the
informant and the deceased Madhu Sahu had gone to pacify the quarrel
going on between the said Jagarnath Sahu (son of informant) and the
accused persons and thereafter the accused persons are alleged to have
killed the deceased Madhu Sahu and thus the occurrence has taken place
without premeditation in a hit of passion and therefore the learned trial
Court has committed gross error in passing the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence under which both the appellants have
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the
IPC and therefore the same is fit to be set aside.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State.
10. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State
4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
has opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellants and
submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence against these appellants in view of the
fact that the appellants wanted to take the revenge of the death of their
relative Mukund Sahu who is said to be killed by the deceased of the
present case (Madhu Sahu). There is clear-cut evidence by the eye
witnesses including P.W.-2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 that at the instance of Naresh
Sahu, the appellant no. 1 Suresh Sahu took the Balua from the hand of
appellant no. 2 Bhadri Devi and gave a fatal blow on the neck of the
deceased by which he died. The post-mortem report which has been
marked as exhibit 6 has clearly supported the case of the prosecution
where the Doctor P.W.-11 has found the injuries inflicted upon the
deceased by sharp-cutting instrument i.e. Balua used by the appellants
and therefore there is no legal point to interfere in the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence and this appeal is fit to be
dismissed.
Appraisal & Findings
11. Having heard the parties, perused the record of the case including
the trial court records.
12. It is manifest from the record that the prosecution has been able to
examine 11 prosecution witnesses which are as under:
1. P.W.1- Anil Kumar Gope
2. P.W.2-Brinda Devi (Informant)
3. P.W.3-Jagarnath Sahu (son of the informant)
4. P.W.4-Dayamuni Devi (daughter of the informant)
5. P.W.5-Dilip Kumar Sahu (son of the informant)
6. P.W.6-Suresh Yadav
7. P.W.7- Dhurka Sahu
8. P.W.8- Dashrath Sahu
9. P.W.9-Sarita Kumari (daughter of the informant)
10. P.W.10-Mikhail Kispotta (I.O. of the case)
11. P.W.11- Dr. K.C. Jha
13. Apart from the oral witnesses, the prosecution has also marked the
following documents: -
5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
A. Exhibit-1- signature of Anil Kumar Gope on inquest report.
B. Exhibit-1/1-signature of Suresh Kumar Yadav on inquest
report.
C. Exhibit-2- is the signature of Jagarnath Sao on fardbeyan.
D. Exhibit-2/1-is the signature of Uday Nath Sao on fardbeyan.
E. Exhibit-3-Fardeyan.
F. Exhibit-4-Inquest report.
G. Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.
H. Exhibit-6-Postmortem Report.
14. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the defence by the
appellants.
15. At the very outset, it is evident from the depositions of Doctor-
P.W.-11 Dr. K.C. Jha who had conducted the post-mortem of the
deceased that it was a case of homicide. The said Doctor P.W.-11 who
conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the Madhu
Sahu had found following injuries:
(i) Incised wound over antrolateral aspect of neck on right side;
size 4"x2"x2" with cutting of skin underlying muscles vessels
larynx and trachea.
(ii) Incised wound over front of neck, size 1"x1/4"x1/6".
The doctor had opined that both the injuries are antemortem in nature
and were caused by a sharp cutting instrument. In the opinion of doctor,
the injury no.1 was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.
The doctor had also proved the postmortem report ext.6.
16. P.W.1- Anil Kumar Gope has been declared hostile by the
prosecution as he has not supported the case of the prosecution.
17. P.W.2- Bridna Devi was the informant of this case and she
claimed to be the eye witness of the occurrence. She had stated that there
was a quarrel between accused persons namely Naresh Sahu (since
deceased) and Suresh Sahu (appellant no. 1) at one side and on the other
side Jagarnath Sahu (P.W.-3) who was the son of the informant. This
witness P.W.2 further stated that having seen the quarrel between the
accused persons and son of the informant (Jagarnath Sahu), she went to
approach the father-in-law of Naresh Sahu namely Shiv Dayal Sahu to
6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
interfere and pacify the quarrel but the said Shiv Dayal Sahu did not pay
attention and thereafter she came to her house and asked her daughter
not to allow her father and brother to go out from her house because
Naresh Sahu and Suresh Sahu would kill them by Balua but in the
meanwhile, the husband of this witness P.W.-2 came out from the house
to pacify Naresh Sahu and Suresh Sahu thereupon Naresh Sahu
instigated Suresh Sahu to kill and then Bhadri Devi (appellant no. 2)
gave Balua to Suresh Sahu (appellant no. 1) who assaulted Madhu Sahu
by Balua.
Thus, from the deposition of this witness P.W.-2, it appears that
the appellant no. 1 Suresh Sahu had assaulted the deceased by Balua.
This witness had stated that her deceased husband Madhu Sahu had gone
to jail in the murder of Mukund Sahu who was uncle of the accused
persons namely Naresh Sahu and Suresh Sahu.
From the deposition of this witness, it is emerging that appellant
no. 1 Suresh Sahu after taking Balua from appellant No. 2 Bhadri Devi
had assaulted the deceased by said Balua by which he died. It is also
clear from the statement of this witness that there was only one blow
inflicted by the appellant no. 1 Suresh Sahu. It is also found from the
testimonies of this witness that a quarrel was going on between the
appellants Suresh Sahu, Naresh Sahu at one side and Jagarnath Sahu on
the other hand who was the son of the informant and the deceased
Madhu Sahu had gone to interfere in the said quarrel to pacify the matter
but in a heat of anger the appellants gave one blow by Balua by which
he died. Although, there was no intention of the appellants to kill them
but vital injury caused by the said assault.
18. P.W.3-Jagarnath Sahu who was the son of the informant and he
had admitted that there had been quarrel between him and the accused
persons namely Suresh Sahu and Naresh Sahu and when father of this
witness namely Madhu Sahu (deceased) interfered to pacify the quarrel,
Suresh Sahu at the instance of Naresh Sahu took the Balua from Bhadri
Devi (appellant no. 2) and assaulted Balua on the neck of the deceased
and thereafter the accused persons including Naresh Sahu and Suresh
Sahu fled away. This witness had categorically stated that this
7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
occurrence has taken place in the revenge of one Mukund Sahu who was
the uncle of the Naresh Sahu and Suresh Sahu (appellant no. 1).
From the deposition of this witness, it is also found that
occurrence has taken place in a heat of anger when the quarrel was going
on between this witness P.W.-3 and the accused persons and when the
father of this witness interfered, he was killed by the accused persons
and thus it is found that it was not a case of murder rather it was a case
of culpable homicide which took place in a hit of passion.
19. P.W.4- Dayamuni Kumari who supported the case of the
prosecution by stating that Bhadri Devi had given Balua to Suresh Sahu
at the instance of Naresh Sahu. This witness has given a contradiction
statement that the accused persons have pulled the deceased from her
house and then killed wheras the informant PW-2 and the son PW-3 had
given a different story that there was a quarrel between the accused
persons and the P.W. 3 Jagarnath Sahu and when her father interfered to
pacify the quarrel then the occurrence took place. At the instance of
Naresh Sahu, after taking Balua, Suresh Sahu (appellant no. 1) had
assaulted the deceased by Balua by which he died. Even if there is
contradiction in the manner of occurrence but she clearly stated the
mode of assault i.e. the appellant no. 1 had inflicted injury upon the
deceased by Balua despite the fact that she did not see that there was a
quarrel between Jagarnath Sahu and the accused persons and when the
deceased interfered to pacify the matter, then he was assaulted by Balua
by which he died.
20. P.W.5- Dilip Kumar Sao was another son of the deceased apart
from P.W.-3 and he had stated that the accused persons have taken out
the deceased from the house and brought to the tree of Gulaichi (a kind
of flower) and at the instance of Naresh Sahu, Suresh Sahu (appellant
no. 1) after taking Balua from Bhadri Devi (appellant no. 2) killed the
deceased by which he died. This witness also stated that there had been a
quarrel between his brother P.W.3 and the accused persons and thereafter
deceased has been killed by the accused persons.
Thus, from this witness, it is found that the occurrence took place
because of the quarrel between the witness P.W.3 (son of the informant)
8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
and the accused persons suggesting that it was a case where death took
place in a sudden quarrel.
21. P.W.6-Suresh Yadav has been declared hostile as he has not
supported the case of the prosecution and P.W.& 7- Dhurka Sahu has
been tendered.
22. P.W.8-Dashrath Sahu has also been tendered and he stated in the
cross examination that he did not know as to how Madhu Sao was killed.
23. P.W.9-Sarita Kumari is the FIR named witness who is the
daughter of the deceased (father) and the informant (mother). She has
supported the case of the prosecution to the extent that there had been an
altercation between the brother of this witness namely Jagarnath Sahu
(P.W.-3) and the accused persons and thereafter accused persons have
killed her father, Madhu Sahu. She had stated in her cross examination
that she had told to the police that her parents had interfered in the
quarrel going on between her brother and the accused persons.
In view of the deposition of this witness, she is also said to be the
eye witness. It is well founded that appellant No. 1 had assaulted
deceased by Balua at the instance of deceased appellant Naresh Sahu
when the said Balua was given by appellant no. 2 Bhadri Devi to
appellant no. 1 Suresh Sahu and thereafter appellant no. 1 assaulted the
deceased by which he died, when the deceased had interfered in the
quarrel went on between the P.W.-3 and the accused persons and thus
from the testimony of this witness it is also found that this occurrence
has taken place in the heat of anger and it was not a case of murder
rather it was culpable homicide not amounting to murder and thus it is
covered under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and not under Section 302
of the IPC.
24. P.W.10- Mikhail Kispotta is the I.O. of this case and he had
proved fardbeyan as exhibit 3. He had also stated that he had prepared
the inquest report in presence of two witnesses namely Anil Kumar Gope
and Suresh Kumar Yadav. He had also proved the inquest report which
was marked as ext. 4. He further stated that he had sent the dead body
for postmortem. He then stated that after returning to police station he
instituted formal F.I.R. which was proved by him as Ext. 5. He had also
9 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
stated that he had inspected the place of occurrence. Thereafter he took
the statement of different witnesses. During the cross-examination he
states that he went to the Sisai Hospital after receiving O.D. Slip. He
further deposed that first of all in the hospital he recorded fardbeyan of
informant and then prepared inquest report. He further states that on that
day he took statement of Jagarnath Sahu, Dayamuni Devi, Dilip Sao,
Anil Kumar Gope and Suresh Kumar Yadav. He stated that Gulaichi tree
was adjacent to the house. However, he had not written the distance. He
however, denied the suggestion that he had submitted charge sheet in
collusion with the informant.
25. Recapitulating the testimonies of the witnesses as appraised in the
foregoing paragraphs, it is well founded that the accused appellant no. 1
after taking Balua (a sharp cutting weapon) from Bhadri Devi (appellant
no. 2) at the instance of the deceased convict appellant Naresh Sahu
assaulted on Madhu Sahu by which injuries were inflicted upon the
deceased Madhu Sahu and he died. It is also found that this occurrence
has taken place all of a sudden in the wake of quarrel (maar-pit) between
the accused persons and the P.W.-3 (Jagarnath Sao) who was the son of
the deceased of the informant. Having meticulously appreciated the
testimonies of the witnesses particularly P.W.-2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 and taking
their statements collectively it is well established that there had been
enmity between two parties including at one side the informant people
and on the other side accused persons because the deceased was accused
in the murder of Mukund Sahu who was the uncle of the appellant no. 1
Suresh Sahu. Further, it is also found that on the date of occurrence, an
altercation (maar-pit) took place between the accused persons and son of
the deceased and when the deceased interfered in between to pacify the
quarrel, the deceased convict Naresh Sahu instigated Suresh Sahu
(appellant no. 1) to assault by Balua handed over by appellant no. 2
(Bhadri Devi) and inflicted injury on the neck of the deceased by which
he died. The assault by Balua upon the deceased is falling in line with
the post-mortem report. Thus, from the mode and manner of the
occurrence, it is found that the occurrence has taken place because of a
sudden fight in a heat of passion and it took place without premeditation
10 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
upon a sudden quarrel. Further it is found that there was only one blow
although two injures have been found and thus it is found that there was
no any intention to cause death although bodily injuries were sufficient
to cause death as evident from the depositions of the witnesses.
26. In this view of the matter, it is found that the learned trial Court
did not appreciate the testimonies of the witnesses and other evidences
available on record in the right perspective and held the guilt of the
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C.
which is not tenable in the eyes of law under the aforesaid facts and
circumstances of this case and it is a case where the accused appellants
are found guilty for the offence punishable under section 304 Part-II of
the IPC i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the death
has taken place in a sudden quarrel as discussed above.
27. In result, the judgment of conviction dated 26th July 2001 and
order of sentence dated 27th July 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No. 213
of 1996 arising out of Sisai P.S. Case No. 33 of 1996 by the Court of
Learned Sessions Judge, Gumla are set aside and they are convicted for
the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC read with
Section 34 of the IPC.
28. So far as sentence is concerned, it is found from the record that at
the time of occurrence of the offence, appellants namely Suresh Sahu
and Bhadri Devi are aged about 27 & 25 years respectively and over a
period of time, they have reached to their middle age. Further, it is found
that the occurrence is of the year 1996 and thus they have suffered from
the rigor of criminal prosecution for the last 28 years and there is nothing
on record to show that there is any criminal history of the appellants.
Further it is found from the record that the appellant no. 1 Suresh Sahu
has remained in jail for about 1 year 8 months 22 days and appellant no.
2 Bhadri Devi has remained in jail for about 11 months 18 days. Further,
it has also been submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellants
are ready to pay a reasonable fine amount by way of compensation in
order to give it to the informant i.e. deceased's wife Brinda Devi.
29. In the backdrop of the aforesaid circumstances, it is found that no
useful purpose would be served by sending the appellants again to the
11 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
jail and justice would be meted if the appellants are sentenced for a term
of period already undergone by them and a suitable amount of fine is
imposed by way of compensation in order to give to the deceased's wife
Brinda Devi-P.W.-2 (Informant).
30. Accordingly, the appellants are sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a term of the period already undergone by them in
custody and further they are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.2,50,000/-
(Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) collectively by way of
compensation in order to give it to the Brinda Devi-P.W.-2 (Informant)
for the offence punishable under Section 304 part-II of IPC.
31. Since the appellants are on bail and therefore, a time of four
months is given to the appellants from the date of this judgment to pay
the aforesaid fine amount and in default of payment of fine, they are
directed to undergo R.I. for a period of 2 years by each of the appellant.
The appellants may deposit the fine amount through the Nazarat of the
concerned Civil Court in order to give it to the Brinda Devi-P.W.-2
(Informant), by way of compensation.
32. The learned Trial Court is directed to take all necessary steps to
ensure the appellants deposit the said fine amount within the stipulated
period of time within 4 (four) months from the date of judgment and if
the same is not deposited by the appellants, then they will serve the
sentence of 2 years (two years) R.I. by each of the appellant as awarded
in case of default of payment of fine by taking all necessary measures as
per the provisions of law.
33. The appellants have been allowed to deposit the said fine amount
through the Nazarat of the concerned Civil Court and the moment
appellants deposit the fine amount, they shall be released and/ or
discharged from the liabilities of bail bonds accordingly in this case.
34. The learned court below is also directed that on deposit of the said
fine amount by the appellants, a notice be sent to the deceased's wife
Brinda Devi-P.W.-2 (informant) and on her appearance the said fine
amount, if so, deposited by the appellants, shall be disbursed to her. In
case, the said informant -P.W.-2 is not traceable or not available or not
found at the given address, or does not appear before the Court, the same
12 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
shall be disbursed to the close or near relatives or kith and kin of the said
victim or else, as the concerned learned trial court may deem fit and
proper, and in this regard the Court concerned may also involve the Para
Legal Volunteer (PLV) of District Legal services Authority (DLSA),
Gumla, if required and the Secretary, D.L.S.A., Gumla is directed to co-
operate in this regard.
35. This Criminal Appeal is dismissed with the modification in the
impugned Judgment of conviction and order of sentence as above.
36. Let the Trial Court Records and the copy of the judgment be also
transmitted to the learned Court below for its compliance in letter and
spirit.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
(Navneet Kumar, J.)
Basant
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 09.09.2024
13 Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 158 of 2002
