Jharkhand High Court
Lakhiram Murmu vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 293 of 1998 (R)
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
07.09.1998 (sentence passed on 11.09.1998) passed by Sri Raj
Narain Prasad Singh, learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in
connection with Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1989]
---------
1. Lakhiram Murmu, S/o Late Matal Murmu,
2. Sukhlal Murmu, S/o Matala Murmu
Both resident of Village Aasna, Tola- Lipidih, P.S.
Govindpur, District- Dhanbad. .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) .... .... Respondent
---------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. M.B. Lal, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
...........
C.A.V. on 15/10/2024 Pronounced on 08/04/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel for the
appellants and Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1998 (sentence
passed on 11.09.1998) passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh,
learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.
287 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been
convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and
have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan
of Vinod Murmu, in which, it has been stated that on
12.04.1989 at about 11:00 A.M. the father of the informant
namely, Chunku Murmu had cut a Bair tree in his kitchen
garden and as he was trying to take it to his house Lakhiram
Murmu and Sukhlal Murmu came and Lakhiram Murmu
claiming that the tree belonged to him wanted to take it away
with the help of Sukhlal Murmu. When the father of the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
informant objected Lakhiram got enraged and started assaulting
him with a lathi and Sukhlal Murmu also assaulted him with a
lathi. It has been alleged that in course of such assault
Lakhiram snatched the tangi from the father of the informant
and gave him a tangi blow on the back of his head as a result of
which he fell down unconscious. Both the accused thereafter fled
away. The incident of assault was witnessed by Rasik Murmu,
Nimai Murmu and the mother of the informant.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Govindpur
P.S. Case No. 76/1989 was instituted u/s 302 of the IPC. On
completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after
cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 287 of
1989. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the
IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as six
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Sukarmani Manjhian) is the wife of the
deceased who has stated that about three years back at around
11:00 A.M. her husband had gone to the kitchen garden to cut a
tree. After cutting the tree he was bringing it home when
Lakhiram Murmu and Sukhlal Murmu stopped him by saying
that the cut tree belongs to them. When her husband replied
that if the villagers decide they can take the tree, the accused
persons retorted by giving lathi blows upon her husband. She
has stated that her husband had a tangi which was snatched by
Lakhiram Murmu who gave a blow on the head of her husband
who died due to such assault. The Police had recorded her
statement.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that she
was in the courtyard of her house when the accused persons
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
had come and committed assault upon her husband. When her
husband had fallen down unconscious due to lathi blow he was
struck with a tangi on head 4-5 times. When she raised an
alarm, nobody had come. After committing the assault, the
accused persons had fled away. Her son Vinod Murmu and
nephew Nimai Murmu had put her husband in a cot. The Police
had only seized the blood-stained earth and not the tangi and
the tree.
6. P.W.2 (Nimai Murmu) has stated that Chunku
Murmu had cut a bair tree in his kitchen garden but Sukhlal
Murmu and Lakhiram Murmu had prevented him from taking
away the tree and both had assaulted Chunku Murmu with
lathis. Lakhiram Murmu had snatched the tangi from the
possession of Chunku Murmu and assaulted Chunku Murmu
with the tangi on his head. He has stated that the Police had
recorded his statement.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that on
hearing the cry of alarm he went to the place of occurrence and
found Chunku Murmu in an injured condition with blood oozing
out from his head. There were no other persons present. He had
called the wife and son of Chunku Murmu while disclosing that
Chunku Murmu has died.
7. P.W.3 (Vinod Murmu) is the informant and son of
the deceased who has stated that his father had cut a bair tree
at which Lakhiram Murmu and Sukhlal Murmu objected and
wanted to take away the tree with them. When his father advised
them to settle the issue in the Panchayat both the accused
started assaulting his father with lathis at which his father fell
down and thereafter Lakhiram snatched the tangi from his
father and assaulted his father with the sharp portion of the
tangi and his father died at the spot itself. At the time of the
assault his mother, Rasik Murmu and an old woman were
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
present at the place of occurrence. He does not remember the
name of the old woman. He has stated that Rasik Murmu has
died.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he
had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing a commotion
and had seen the dead body of his father with both the accused
persons present. His mother had reached the place of occurrence
after him.
8. P.W.4 (Somani Manjhian) was tendered by the
prosecution.
9. P.W.5 (Baban Singh) was posted at Govindpur
P.S. and he had investigated Govindpur P.S. Case No. 76/1989.
He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as
Exhibit-1. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is the
parti land of the informant. He has proved the inquest report
which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He had recorded the
statements of Bimal Murmu, Sukarmani Manjhian, Nimai
Murmu, Rasik Murmu and Somani Manjhian. He had received
the postmortem report and after completion of investigation had
submitted charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he
had not seized the cut tree. In the courtyard he did not find
lathis or tangi.
10. P.W.6 (Dr. D.K. Dhiraj) was posted as a Tutor of
Forensic Medicine in P.M.C.H. Dhanbad and on 13.04.1989 he
had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Chunku Murmu and
had found the following:
(i) Swelling 5" x 4" over right temporal, parietal
occipital area with ecchymosis of scalp
underneath.
(ii) Lacerated wound 1" x ¼" upto bone 3/2"
above medial end of left eyebrow.
(iii) Abrassion 1 ½" x 1" and 2" x ¾" on left
deltoid area. The arm bone showed close
fracture in the middle part.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
(iv) Abrasion 3" x 1" on middle and outer part of
right arm associated with contusion 3" x 2".
On dissection blood clots were seen under
right occipital parietal area 5" x 4" x 1/10". Thin
subdural ecchymosis was seen all over parietal
frontal, occipital and temporal areas. Left sixth to
11th ribs were found fractured near the vertebral
end. Left lung was lacerated and collapsed.
Approximately 150 c.c. fluid blood was found inside
the left chest cavity. Spleen was found torn in two
pieces. Approximately 600 c.c. fluid blood and clots
were present inside abdominal cavity. Stomach and
urinary bladder were empty. Both sides of the heart
were also empty.
The cause of death was opined to be from
combined effects of shock, coma and asphyxia due to the
aforementioned hard and blunt force injuries. The postmortem
report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3.
11. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the
murder of Chunku Murmu.
12. It has been submitted by Mr. M.B. Lal, learned
counsel for the appellants that there are no eyewitnesses to the
occurrence. He has submitted that even the informant (P.W.3)
had arrived at the place of occurrence after the assault had
already taken place. In fact, the evidence of P.W.2 reveals that
when P.W.2 had arrived at the scene of crime there were no
persons present and it was he who had informed the wife and
son of the deceased about the murder of Chunku Murmu.
13. Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, learned Spl. P.P. for the
State has submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the eyewitnesses
to the occurrence and the postmortem report corroborates the
manner of assault as depicted by the eyewitnesses.
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court
Records.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
15. The fardbeyan of Vinod Murmu (P.W.3) would
suggest that he was an eyewitness to the incident of assault
committed by the appellants on the trivial issue of ownership
over a cut bair tree and his mother Sukarmani Manjhian, Rasik
Murmu and Nimai Murmu had also witnessed the assault
committed upon Chunku Murmu. As per P.W.3, Rasik Murmu
had died during the pendency of the trial. So far as Nimai
Murmu (P.W.2) is concerned, he in his cross-examination has
categorically stated that when he arrived at the place of
occurrence there were no one present and it was he who had
informed the wife and son of the deceased about the murder.
The evidence of P.W.2 contradicts the evidence of Sukarmani
Manjhian (P.W.1) who has claimed to have witnessed the
incident of assault. The evidence of P.W.1 is further diluted by
the evidence of P.W.3 who has stated that when he had reached
the place of occurrence his father was already lying dead and
P.W.1 had reached the place of occurrence after him. In fact,
from the evidence of P.W.3 an inference can be drawn about the
truthfulness of the evidence of P.W.2 regarding P.W.2 informing
the son and mother of the deceased about the murder. The
evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 regarding the manner of assault
seems to be contrary to the findings recorded in the postmortem
report. As per P.W.1 and P.W.3 the deceased was assaulted on
his head with the sharp end of the tangi but the injury suffered
by the deceased has been opined to be by hard and blunt
substance. In no circumstance, therefore, it can be said that it
was the appellants who had committed the assault upon
Chaunku Murmu on account of the clear dearth in the evidence
put forward by the prosecution. The learned trial court has not
embarked on an in-depth analysis of the evidence on record
while erroneously recording a finding of guilt against the
appellants.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:11647-DB )
16. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions
made hereinabove set aside the judgment and order of conviction
and sentence dated 07.09.1998 (sentence passed on 11.09.1998)
passed by Sri Raj Narain Prasad Singh, learned 1st Addl.
Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No. 287 of 1989.
17. This appeal is allowed.
18. Since the appellants are on bail, they are
discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 8th day of April, 2025.
A. Sanga /-
