Jharkhand High Court
Upen Mandal @ Chanki Mandal Son Of Late ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 8 April, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 39 of 1999 (R)
Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
27.11.1998 passed by Shri Krishna Murari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 147/118 of 1995-98
---
Upen Mandal @ Chanki Mandal son of Late Prahlad Mandal, resident of
Village Deoli, PS Ghatsila, District East Singhbhum ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Varsha Mandal w/o Late Niranand Mandal, Village Deoli, PS
Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum ... ... Respondents
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dash, Advocate
For the Respondent-State : Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P.
---
Present:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---
C.A.V. on - 26.03.2025 Pronounced on - 08.04.2025
Per, R. Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Manoj Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
conviction and sentence dated 27.11.1998 passed by Shri Krishna Murari,
1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S. T. No.
147/118 of 1995-98 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been
convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. and has
been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fard bayen of Varsha
Rani Mandal recorded on 14.07.1994 in which it has been stated that the
husband of the informant and the appellant are two brothers and the
land and house have been partitioned between them by the villagers.
The courtyard was divided into two by making a ridge out of mud and
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
both the brothers used to regularly quarrel regarding the said
demarcation. Since rain water had collected in the portion of the
informant, the husband of the informant had cut the ridge and the
accumulated water had flowed out. This caused a quarrel on 12.07.1994
between the husband of the informant and his brother Upen Mandal.
The quarrel aggravated and Upen Mandal picked up a spade and had
given 2-3 blows on the head of the husband of the informant who fell
down and became unconscious and blood was oozing out from the
wound. On hearing the commotion, several villagers had assembled and
taken the injured on a cot to the hospital.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Ghatshila P. S. Case No. 78 of
1994 was instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 326/307 of
I.P.C. 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 S. T. No. 147 of 1995. Charge was
framed under Section 302 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to
the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses in
support of its case.
5. P.W. 1 - Balram Mandal did not support the case of
prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.
6. P.W. 2 - Angad Kumar Mandal has stated that around 8:30 -
9:00 P.M. after having dinner, he was in his house when he heard the
sound of yelling at which he and his brother - Balram Mandal went to
the house of Niranand Mandal. He saw Niranand Mandal lying in the
courtyard in an injured state and blood was coming out from his head.
There was no other person present when he reached the house of
Niranand Mandal. On being called by his brother - Pashupati Mandal,
Khokhan Mandal and Lakshmi Kanta Mandal had come. He and the
others had taken Niranand Mandal on a 407 truck to HCL hospital at
Mau Bhandar from where on being referred he was taken to TMH,
Jamshedpur where he was admitted and on the next day he was sent to
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
Ranchi for treatment and after one week Niranand Mandal had died. He
does not know as to how Niranand Mandal had suffered such injury.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know in
which hospital, Niranand Mandal was treated at Ranchi.
7. P.W. 3 - Lakshmi Kanta Mandal has stated that at around
8:30-9:00 P.M., Balram Mandal had called him and taken him to the
house of Niranand Mandal, where he saw Niranand Mandal lying on the
ground in an injured state. When he reached the house of Niranand
Mandal, he found Angad Mandal, Balram Mandal, Khokhan Mandal,
Pashupati Mandal and others present. The injured was later on taken to
HCL hospital, Mau Bhandar and thereafter to TMH, Jamshedpur. After
getting Niranand Mandal admitted, he had returned back home. Later
on Niranand Mandal died. He had heard that the deceased had a quarrel
with his brother Upen Mandal.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not stated before
the police that other villagers were also present in the house of Niranand
Mandal.
8. P.W. 4 - Pashupati Mandal has stated that it was around
8:30-9:00 P.M. and he was in his house after having dinner. He had
heard the quarrel between Upen and Niranand Mandal at which he went
to the source of quarrel and found that Niranand Mandal was lying in an
injured state. The wife and the mother of Niranand Mandal were crying.
The wife of Niranand had disclosed that due to accumulation of water in
the courtyard, there was a quarrel between Niranand and Upen. In
course of such quarrel, Upen had given a blow upon Niranand with a
spade. The father-in-law of Niranand Mandal had been informed by him
at which he came. The injured had been taken to the hospital at Mau
Bhandar on a truck after which he was taken to TMH, Jamshedpur,
where he was admitted. Subsequently, he was taken to Ranchi for
treatment where he breathed his last.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance between his
house and that of Niranand Mandal is 200-250 feet. When he reached the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
house of Niranand Mandal, Angad Mandal, Khokhan Mandal, Lakshmi
Mandal, Balram Mandal and some other villagers were present.
9. P.W. 5 - Ram Krishna Mandal was in his house when about
9:30 P.M., Angad Mandal and Devashish Mandal had come on a motor-
cycle and disclosed that his son-in-law and his brother had a scuffle and
therefore he is required at the said place. He had thereafter gone to the
house of his son-in-law along with a 407 mini truck. He saw his son-in-
law in an unconscious state with a wound on his head. His daughter and
villagers had disclosed about the fight between his son-in-law and Upen
Mandal over accumulation of rain water in the courtyard and the assault
committed upon him by Upen with a spade. He had taken his son-in-
law in the Tata 407 mini truck to HCL hospital, Ghatshila and on being
referred, they took him to TMH, Jamshedpur where he was treated for
two days after which he was taken to Nagarmal Seva Sadan, Ranchi
where in course of treatment he died on 24.07.1994. He has identified his
signature on the inquest report and that on the post mortem report which
have been marked as Exhibit 1/a and 1/b and the carbon copy of the
inquest report has been marked as 'Y' for identification. His statement
was recorded by the police in which Parmenshwar Mandal and Gautam
Kumar Mandal had signed and which has been proved and marked as
Exhibit 1/c and 1/e.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that his statement was
recorded at Ranchi.
10. P.W. 6 - Varsha Rani Mandal is the informant and the wife
of the deceased who has stated that in presence of the villagers, the
properties were partitioned between her husband and his brother - Upen
Mandal. There was a ridge in the midst of the courtyard and since the
rain water had accumulated in the courtyard, her husband had cut the
ridge. On the next day, at 9:00 P.M., Upen Mandal called her husband
and when he came out, Upen Mandal had picked-up a spade and struck
her husband on his head three times and resultantly he got injured and
fell down. When she raised a cry of alarm Angad Mandal, Pashupati
Mandal, Balram Mandal, Lakshmi Kant Mandal and other villagers had
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
gathered. She had sent Angad Mandal and Devashish Mandal to call her
father. Her father, Angad Mandal and other persons had taken her
husband to Mau Bhandar Hospital from where he was referred to TMH,
Jamshedpur and from there to Ranchi, where in course of treatment her
husband died. Her fard beyan was recorded at her village Deoli by the
police.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband died after
12 days from the date of occurrence. The partition of properties between
her husband and his brother had taken place prior to her marriage.
When the accused had given a ridge in the courtyard, her husband had
not objected to the same. Before making a ridge, her husband and
brother-in-law had quarreled regarding exit of the door as there is only
one door of entry and exit for both brothers. At the time of the incident,
her mother-in-law was in the house, but was sleeping. Her mother-in-
law awoke on hearing the alarm which had occurred due to the assault.
When the ridge was cut by her husband, Upen Mandal had not raised
any objection.
11. P.W. 7 - Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu was posted as a Medical
Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH, Ranchi and on
24.07.1994, he had conducted autopsy over the dead body of Niranand
Mandal and had found the following:
"1. Abrasion with scale at places it had fallen out.
(i) 3 x 2 cm right elbow back.
(ii) 2 x ½ cm and 1 x ½ cm right hand back.
(iii) 3 x 2 cm left parietal eminence.
2. Stitched wounds partially united and stitches are in position -
(i) 7 cm long on right frontal parietal region of head situated
obliquely.
(ii) 7 cm long on the left parietal region of head situated antero
posterior. Underneath there is a depressed fracture of left
parietal bone measuring 3 x 1 cm over near the juncture of
coronal surgical. There is separation of left coronal suture
and contusion of brain underneath.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
(iii) 17 cm long on the right fronto parietal region of head
starting from medial side of right eye brow to the root of
right ear. Underneath there is bony gap 9 x 8 cm area in
the right fronto perito temporal area underneath the
durometre is missing with evidence of infection in the form
of pus."
It was opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and
death was caused by head injuries. The injuries are possible due to blunt
side of kudal. All the injuries were not possible by single blow. He has
proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 2.
12. P.W. 8 - Man Singh Murmu was posted as an Assistant Sub-
Inspector of Police in Ghatshila Police Station and on 14.07.1994 he had
recorded the fard beyan of Varsha Rani Mandal. The fard beyan was
proved and marked as Exhibit 3. He has proved the communication sent
to Officer-in-Charge for registering the case which has been marked as
Exhibit 4. The endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge on the fard beyan of
Varsha Rani Mandal has been proved and marked as Exhibit 4/1
whereas the formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit 5. In course of
investigation, he has recorded the re-statement of the informant and also
inspected the place of occurrence. The place of occurrence is at village
Deoli in the courtyard of the informant and the accused. He had
recorded the statements of Balram Mandal, Pashupati Mandal, Angad
Mandal, Lakshmi Mandal and Khokhan Mandal. After obtaining the
post mortem report, he has submitted charge-sheet. The witness Balram
Mandal has stated that when he had reached the place of occurrence, he
had seen Upen Mandal with a spade in his hand, who on seeing him had
fled away.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not found blood-
stained earth at the place of occurrence. He has not recorded the
statement of the doctors who had treated Niranand Mandal.
13. The statement of the accused has been recorded under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the
offence.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
14. Mr. Manoj Kumar Dash, learned counsel for the appellant
has submitted that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the
witnesses. He has submitted that the incident had occurred at the spur
of the moment on account of the dispute with respect to demarcation of
the courtyard and the act of the deceased in breaking the ridge to allow
free flow of accumulated rain water in the courtyard. As per Mr. Dash,
at best a case under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. is made out against the
appellant. The appellant has remained in custody for about 11 years and
7 months.
15. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. has submitted that the
evidence of P.W. 6 being an eye-witness account has been corroborated
by P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 and the post mortem report
corroborates the manner of assault attributed to the appellant.
16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides
and have also perused the trial court records.
17. The demarcation in the courtyard proved to be the point of
attrition between the deceased and the appellant who are brothers and
the cutting of the ridge by the deceased due to accumulation of rain
water led to a late reaction as on the next day, the quarrel between the
brothers culminated in the assault by a spade on the head of Niranand
Mandal by the appellant. The sole eye-witness to the occurrence is the
informant who has been examined as P.W. 6 and her testimony reveal
about the quarrel and an assault by a spade which proved fatal to
Niranand Mandal. Her evidence is consistent and not tainted with any
exaggeration. Her evidence finds corroboration from P.W. 4 who has
claimed to have heard the quarrel between the appellant and the
deceased which prompted him to visit the house of the deceased. P.W. 2
and P.W. 3 had rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing a
commotion, where they found Niranand Mandal lying in an injured
condition in the courtyard and P.W. 6 has disclosed to them about the
incident and the appellant being the sole person responsible for the death
of Niranand Mandal. The prosecution has categorically established its
case beyond all reasonable doubt so far as the assault committed by the
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
appellant upon the deceased is concerned. This brings us to the second
limb of argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that
a case under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. is made out against the
appellant. In this context, we may refer to Exception 4 to Section 300 of
the I.P.C. which reads as under:
"Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is
committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue
advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault."
18. The prosecution case evinces that there was a dispute with
respect to creation of the ridge in the courtyard as part of the exercise of
partitioning of properties between the appellant and the deceased. It is
apparent that there was an under-current of tension between both the
sides and the breaking of the ridge by the deceased to allow the free flow
of rain water which had accumulated on account of the demarcation
triggered a spark and on the next day on account of the act on behalf of
the deceased, a quarrel had ensued and the spade lying nearby was used
as a weapon of assault by the appellant striking some blows on the head
of the deceased. Admittedly, the appellant was not armed and he also
did not act in a brutal manner, but had instead instinctively assaulted the
deceased which led to his death. The post mortem report indicates that
the assault was made with the blunt side of the spade and it also appears
that the deceased had remained alive for 12 days after such assault had
taken place. The circumstances noted above would demonstrate that the
case of the appellant comes under the purview of Exception 4 of Section
300 of I.P.C. and accordingly we modify the sentence of the appellant
from Section 302 I.P.C. to Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Consequently, the
sentence imposed upon the appellant is modified to 10 years rigorous
imprisonment. The appellant, it seems had already completed the
modified sentence imposed upon him by us.
19. We therefore on the basis of the discussions made
hereinabove modify the conviction of the appellant to one under Section
Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:12190-DB
304 Part II I.P.C. and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
10 years.
20. This appeal stands disposed of with the aforesaid
modification in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
27.11.1998 passed by Shri Krishna Murari, 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in S. T. No. 147/118 of 1995-98.
21. Pending I.A., if any stands closed.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 8th day of April, 2025
R.Shekhar/NAFR/Cp.3
