Jharkhand High Court
Martam Gagrai vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.1074 of 2016
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 28.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 214 of 2012)
----
Martam Gagrai, son of late Ando Gagrai, resident of Rengardera, PO
and PS Goilkera, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Mahtha, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwari, Spl.PP
.........
JUDGMENT
11th September 2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.: We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.
2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of
conviction dated 28.06.2016 and order of sentence dated
30.06.2016 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 214 of 2012 whereby
and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa convicted the appellant under Sections
302, 323, 341 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced
him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, further he was sentenced
to imprisonment for one year under section 323 IPC,
imprisonment for one month under section 341 IPC and
imprisonment for one years under Section 448 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that the judgment of the learned trial Court is against
the evidence adduced by the prosecution. On the facts of the case
and evidence adduced, the appellant could not have been
convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is
no application of section 341 of IPC and offence under section
448 of IPC. He submitted that none of the PWs attributed any
motive upon this appellant.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the doctor's
evidence clearly suggests that the death is homicidal. The
deceased died because of head injury and the eye-witnesses
clearly stated that the same was at the instance of this appellant.
This clearly proves the prosecution case that the appellant had
committed murder of the deceased.
5. From the prosecution case, we find that after taking meal
the informant was sitting on a cot and was talking with his wife.
In the meantime, Martam Gagrai the appellant entered his house
and gave one lathi blow upon him and he received injury on his
right eye-brow. When son of the informant, Murli Gope came
and intervened and opposed the same, when this appellant
started beating his son as a result of which he became
unconscious. Thereafter this appellant fled from the place of
occurrence. On the aforesaid information FIR was registered
being Goilkera PS Case No. 21 of 2012 under section 341, 323,
307, 302 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 448, 341, 323, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal and
the appellant was put on trial.
7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record cognizance was taken by Court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class at Chaibasa who committed the same to Court of Sessions
where charges were framed under Sections 302, 323, 341 and 448
of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.
8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 7 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution, who are as under:-
i. PW1 :- Ghasiya Gope
ii. PW2 :- Chokro Angaria
iii. PW3 :- Pangela Kui
iv. PW4 :- Budhani Kui
v. PW5 :- Chamra Angaria
vi. PW6 :- Dr. V. K. Pandit
vii. PW7 :- Haripad Narsundar, I.O.
9. Following documents have been exhibited :
i. Ext.1 - Postmortem report.
ii. Ext.2 - Fardbeyan
iii. Ext.3 - Inquest report
iv. Ext.4 - Formal FIR
v. Ext.5 - Memo of Arrest
10. PW1 is the informant and father of the deceased. PW1,
PW2, PW3 has supported the case of the prosecution. They
stated that this appellant entered the house and started beating
the informant. When his son opposed, with a stick the son was
also assaulted, resulting in his death. The evidence of these
witnesses is consistent, who stated that the death occurred due to
assault by the appellant.
PW6 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the
deceased and found the following injuries on his dead body:-
External injury :
i. Bruise, swelling and abrasion on left temple area and on
face.
ii. There is blood clot in nostril and oral cavity.
Internal examination:
i. Head and neck-on dissection of bruised area there is a
blood clot under skin. On dissection of scalp bone and
face there is a laceration of brain tissue with clotted blood
inside Cranial cavity. There is a fracture of temporal and
maxillary bone on left side.
ii. Chest and abdomen - undigested rice present in
stomach.
The doctor opined that the cause of death was head injury
and facial injury caused by hard and blunt object. All the injuries
were ante mortem in nature. The doctor also opined that the time
of death is between 12 hours to 48 hours from the time of
conducting the postmortem as rigor mortis was present in both
upper and lower limbs.
11. On the spur of moment when the deceased opposed the
assault by this appellant on his father, the appellant attacked
him. This suggests that the entire incident of attacking the
deceased by the appellant was not premeditated. On background
of the aforesaid evidence we find it difficult to uphold the
conviction of the appellant under section 302 of IPC. On
aforesaid evidence, this case falls under section 304 Part-II of
IPC.
Further from the evidence, we could not find any material
that this appellant had wrongfully confined the deceased or any
one. Thus section 341 of IPC is not applicable in this case, due to
want of evidence.
The fact that the appellant has trespassed in the house of
the deceased has been proved by the evidence of the PW1, PW2
and PW3. Thus the appellant has committed offence under
section 448 of IPC for which he has been rightly punished and
sentenced for a period of one year.
We also find that the conviction under section 323 of IPC of
the appellant for assaulting the informant has also been
substantiated by evidence. Thus his conviction under section 323
of IPC and sentence of one year also cannot be interfered with.
12. From what has been held above, we convert the conviction
of the appellant from section 302 of IPC to section 304 Part-II and
further modify the sentence to the period which he has already
undergone.
13. This Court directs, the above named appellant be released
forthwith from custody, who is already in custody for more than
10 years, if not required in any other case.
14. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 1074 of 2016 is dismissed with
modification on the findings of conviction and sentence.
15. Consequently, pending I.A. No. 5759 of 2022 stands
disposed of.
16. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court
Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 11/09/2024
Tanuj/
N.A.F.R.
