Jharkhand High Court
Kalipado Munda vs The State Of Jharkhand on 7 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2006
[Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.02.2006 and order of
sentence dated 25.06.2006 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-6, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in
Sessions Trial No. 340 of 1995]
Kalipado Munda, Son of Late Moso Munda, resident of
Village- Jamdih @ Baruda, P.S.- Potka, District- East
Singhbhum.
..... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent
.....
For the Appellant : Mr. Dhananjay Kr. Dubey, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P.
For the Informant : Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate.
: Mr. Preetam Mandal, Advocate.
.....
P R E S E N T
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
JUDGMENT
Dated: 07th January, 2025
By Court: - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction dated 24.02.2006 and order of sentence
dated 25.02.2006 passed by learned Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-6, East Singhbhum,
Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 340 of 1995 and 31 of
2002, whereby and where under, the appellant has been
held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 307
and 326 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo R.I. of seven
years along with fine of Rs.7,000/- for each offences with
default stipulation.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow
compass is that on 04.06.1994, at about 09:00 am,
Informant heard hullah that appellant has injured his
mother by shooting arrows. He ran to the place of
occurrence and saw that three arrow had entered in the
body of his mother, which was inserted at stomach, back
and left waist. Appellant is the maternal Grandson of the
informant's mother. Appellant was demanding land share
for him, but when she refused to give him, he attempted
to kill her.
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Potka P.S. Case
No. 33 of 1994, G.R. No. 948 of 1994 was registered for the
offences under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C.
5. After completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer
has submitted charge sheet against the sole appellant for the
aforesaid offences and after taking cognizance of offences,
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and in due
course, after registration of Sessions Trial Case, the file was
transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C.-II, who
proceeded for trial of the case and after conclusion of trail,
has passed the impugned judgment and order and
convicted and sentenced the appellants as stated above.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that
admittedly, there was land dispute between the parties and
in a sudden manner, the occurrence took place. The sole
appellant belongs to tribal community and there is
allegation of causing injury by using bow (dhanush) and
arrow (teer) to his own grandmother, which was found to
be grievous in nature. There was no previous enmity
between the parties. There was sole injured P.W.-1, Pio
Mundarin (two years ago she died). The appellant has been
sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years for each of the
offence under Sections 307 and 326 of the I.P.C. and out of
which he has already remained in custody during trial/post
trial about 1 and a half years. The appellant was all along on
bail and after this case, he has not been involved in any
other case. It was first offence of the appellant, but the
learned trial court without recording any special reasons
did not extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 or Section 360 of Cr.P.C. The learned
counsel has confined himself towards the quantum of
sentence instead of touching the merits of impugned
judgment and prays for reduction of sentence to the extent
already undergone during trial.
7. On the other hand, learned Spl.P.P. as well as learned
counsel for the informant have opposed the aforesaid
contentions including the prayer for reduction of sentence,
in view of seriousness of offence, wherein a woman was
assaulted by using bow and arrow and there were four
penetrating injuries caused by the appellant. She was bed
ridden about two weeks, thereafter, she was discharged
from the hospital. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal,
which is fit to be dismissed.
8. I have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment and order in the light of the
contentions raised on behalf of both side.
9. It appears that in the course of trial nine witnesses were
examined by the prosecution:-
P.W.-1 : Pio Mundarin.
P.W.-2 : Lakhi Pado Munda.
P.W.-3 : Gopal Munda.
P.W.-4 : Lengda Munda.
P.W.-5 : Pradeep Kumar Hoto.
P.W.-6 : Ravindranath Mishra.
P.W.-7 : Narayan Chandra Chatterjee.
P.W.-8 : Samant Kumar Das.
P.W.-9 : Dr. B.K. Rai.
10. Apart from oral evidence, following documentary
evidences were also adduced.
Exhibit-1 : Signature on written report.
Exhibit-2 : Injury Report.
Exhibit-3 : Signature of Ravindranath Mishra
on seizure list.
Exhibit-3/1 : Signature of Narayan Chandra
Chatterjee on seizure list.
Exhibit-4 : Fardbayan is scribed and signature
by Saudagar Paswan
Exhibit-5 : Charge sheet is scribed by
Saudagar Paswan.
Exhibit-A to : Contents of case diary.
A/6
Exhibit-P6 : Discharge Slip.
11. It appears that FIR was loadged on 05.06.1994 and during
trial, it is also proved that there were four penetrating
injuries to the injured, who was examined as P.W.1, Pio
Mundarin and corroborated the prosecution story.
12. The next important witness is P.W.-5, Dr. Pradeep Kumar
Hoto, who has found following injuries of P.W.-1 Pio
Mundarin.
(i) Penetrating injury on lower costal region left side.
(ii) Penetrating injury on just below scapula.
(iii) Penetrating injury middle of back.
(iv) Penetrating injury just below left ear.
Above injuries are opined to be grievous in nature, but no
reason has been mentioned as to how the injuries are
grevious. After operating the same, the arrows were
brought out and the injured was discharged from the
hospital within two weeks.
13. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the required
intention and knowledge for constituting offence under
Section 307 of the I.P.C. is absolutely lacking in this case,
rather the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C. is
constituted against the appellant for which he has been
facing the rigor of the trial for more than 20 years.
14. Considering the genesis of occurrence and nature of offence
committed by the petitioner and also in view of the fact that
more than two decade has been lapsed from the date of
incident and also in view of the fact that appellant has
maintained peace and not involved in any other case.
Therefore, sentence passed against the appellant is hereby
reduced to the period already undergone.
15. Accordingly, conviction and sentence of the appellant for
the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is set aside and
this appeal is partly allowed reducing the sentence of the
appellant for the offence under Section 326 of the I.P.C.
16. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be
sent back to the court concerned for information and
needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: 07th January, 2025.
Simran/-NAFR
