Jharkhand High Court
Turtan Bage vs The State Of Jharkhand on 26 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.105 of 2017
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2016 and order of sentence
dated 17.09.2016 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega
in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2011)
----
Turtan Bage, son of late Amus Bage, resident of village Raisia,
Hulditoli, PO and PS Kolebira, District Simdega
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Birat Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mrs. Priya Shreshtha, Spl.PP
Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. PP
.........
JUDGMENT
26th 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 07.09.2016 and order of sentence dated
17.09.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2011 whereby and
whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega
convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with a fine of
Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
submits that there is no evidence led by the prosecution to
suggest that the appellant had committed murder of the
deceased who is none but his mother. None had seen this
appellant fleeing from the place of occurrence nor assaulting her.
In alternative he submits that even if this Court comes to a
conclusion that it is the appellant who had assaulted the
deceased but considering the medical evidence that there was
only one blow, that too, with the stone, it will not fall within the
purview of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. If the evidence
of the witnesses is scrutinized properly, one will understand that
there was some altercation going on between the mother and the
son and suddenly in the heat of passion, this incident had taken
place. The reason assigned by the prosecution is that the
appellant was demanding the money under the old age pension
from his mother for purchasing bicycle, which the mother was
opposing, thus an altercation took place and one blow was given
in the head of the deceased by the appellant. The evidence
adduced in the case will suggest that the appellant cannot be
punished under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and at best
he can be convicted under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal
Code.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that the learned
trial Court has correctly convicted the appellant as the witnesses
had fully supported the case of the prosecution. The medical
evidences also supported the version of the prosecution. Thus
she prays for no interference in the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence.
5. The F.I.R. is at the instance of PW5. He states that he heard
commotion from the house of the appellant and went there and
saw this appellant assaulting the deceased with fist and slaps
when he confronted the appellant, he also threatened him. Out of
fear he left the place of occurrence and informed the others and
when he returned he saw this appellant dragging his mother
towards the open land of Tand (bari). On seeing this informant
and others, the appellant left the deceased and fled. The
informant and others then realized that she is dead.
6. On the basis of fardbeyan, Kolebira PS Case No. 43 of 2010
was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
against the appellant.
7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was put on trial.
8. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court
of Session where charges were framed and trial proceeded.
9. To substantiate the prosecution case, altogether 9 witnesses
were examined by the prosecution, who are :-
i. PW1 :- Dr. Om Prasakash Rawani
ii. PW2 :- Mojibul Haque
iii. PW3 :- Ishaque Bage
iv. PW4 :- Barnard Kandulna
v. PW5 :- Kalyan Bage
vi. PW6 :- Arun Kumar
vii. PW7 :- Cyril Horo
viii. PW8:- Gabriel Bage
ix. PW9 :- Iliyazer Bage
x. PW10 :- Punch Lal Ram
10. Some documents were exhibited which are :
i. Ext.1 - Postmortem report
ii. Ext.2 - Letter relating to material exhibit submitted by local
police.
iii. Ext.3&3/1 - Signature of Barnard Kandulna and Ishaque Bage
as witness of written report.
iv. Ext.4 - Written report.
v. Ext.5&5/1 - Challan and forwarding letter relating to the
material exhibit
vi. Ext.6 - FSL Test Report
One blood stained stone, one plastic slipper and one blood
stained pant was marked as Material exhibit nos. I, II and III.
11. PW1 is the doctor who had conducted the postmortem of
the dead body and had found the following injuries on the dead
body:-
External examination :
i. Fracture of frontal and left perital bone and laceration of
over lying skin.
ii. Abrasion left cheek.
Internal examination:
Laceration of brain matter and haemorrhage and tear of
pia and aramas matter.
The doctor opined that the death is caused due to head
injury with internal laceration of brain and due to bleeding.
12. From the perusal of the evidence of PW3, PW4 and PW5,
we find that all of them have stated that they heard commotion
and went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of
the deceased. They all stated that it is this appellant who had
committed murder of the deceased as he was demanding to
purchase bicycle from the money which the deceased had
received as old age pension.
13. From the evidence led, we find that one blow was given on
the head of the deceased by this appellant. We also find from the
evidence that the appellant was quarrelling with the deceased.
Being her son, he was demanding bicycle which he wanted to
purchase from the old age pension which was received by his
mother. As the mother refused, the appellant starting quarrelling
with her and degree of quarrel increased and ultimately one
blow was given in her head. On the fact of this case, we are of the
opinion that this case will come under Exception 4 of section 300
of the Indian Penal Code. As the deceased refused to give money
which the appellant demanded the appellant started quarrelling.
In the heat of passion he gave one blow on the head of the
deceased. From the evidence we find that there is nothing to
suggest that there was any intention on the part of the appellant
to commit murder. There was no repeated blow also. Thus we
convert the conviction of this appellant from section 302 of
Indian Penal Code to section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal
Code. So far as sentence is concerned since he has already
remained in custody from 05.11.2015 i.e. for about nine years, his
sentence is converted to that of the period which he has already
undergone.
14. This Court directs the above named appellant to be
released forthwith from custody, if not required in any other
case.
15. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with the modification
in the judgment of conviction dated 07.09.2016 and order of
sentence dated 17.09.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 117 of
2011.
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 : 26/09/2024
Tanuj/
N.A.F.R.
