Jharkhand High Court
Baldeo Marandi vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 January, 2025
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 08.08.2002 and order of
sentence dated 09.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Jamtara in Sessions Case No.209 of 1997/ 243 of 2001).
........
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 602 of 2002
.........
1.Baldeo Marandi, S/o Late Hemlal Marandi
2.Nema Marandi, S/o Late Rambra Marandi
Both R/o Village Kalpara Karmatanr, P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara
..... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent
WITH
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 650 of 2002
.........
Sikhar Marandi, S/o Late Tursa Marandi, R/o Village- Kalpara
Karmatanr P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamatara
..... Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... Respondent(s)
.........
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate
Ms. Rita Kumari, Advocate
Ms. Neelu Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, AddI. Public Prosecutor
Mr. Saket Kumar, AddI. Public Prosecutor
-----------
PRESENT
Sri Ananda Sen, J.
Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
JUDGMENT
CAV On 28.11.2024 Pronounced On 23/01/2025
Per Ananda Sen, J.:
These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of
conviction dated 08.08.2002 and order of sentence dated 09.08.2002
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara in Sessions
Case No.209 of 1997/ 243 of 2001, whereby these appellants were
convicted under Sections 302 and 449 of the Indian Penal Code and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of
Rs.1,000/- each under Section 302 of IPC and they are further
sentence to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 449 of IPC.
2. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants submitted that there was strained relationship
between the informant and the appellants as the deceased was the
step-mother of the appellant- Sikhar Marandi. Informant- Babulal
Marandi, who is the own son of the deceased had driven out the
parents from his house and due to grudge and to grab the land, he
has implicated this appellant- Sikhar Marandi, who is step-bother as
an accused. It is inconceivable that once the informant had hid
himself in the house, he could have seen the occurrence. It is further
submitted that the instant fardbeyan is not the first information. As
per para 2 of his examination, his statement was recorded in the
police station when he had earlier gone there, but that particular
information has not been produced before this Court. The wife of this
informant has not stated specifically about the overt act of each of
these appellants. The daughter of the informant (P.W-4) is a child
witness, who also claimed to be an eye witness but her testimony
must be scrutinized very cautiously. He further submitted that this
witness had taken the name of only Sikhar Marandi and another.
There is no motive to commit murder of the deceased as before the
Court, it was submitted by the witness that there was cordial
relationship between these appellants and informant prior to the date
of occurrence. From the evidence of the defence witness it is clear
that informant- Babulal Marandi had driven out his parents
including the deceased out of their house and it is the villagers, who
had built a hut for the old lady as the informant did not agree to the
proposal put forth by the panchayat. On these grounds, learned
counsel for the appellants prays for acquittal.
3. Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submitted
that wife of the informant and the daughter are the eye witnesses,
who had narrated the entire incident. Their testimony is consistent,
cogent and trustowrthy. The medical evidence also suggests that
indiscriminate assault was made upon the deceased by sharp cutting
weapon. Since the medical evidence and ocular evidence matches,
the conviction of the appellants needs to be sustained. The
discrepancy in the evidence, which has been shown by the learned
counsel for the appellant is minor and has got no bearing on the case.
Thus, this appeal needs to be dismissed.
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant-
Babulal Marandi, who stated that on 17.06.1997 at about 8.00 P.M.
some stones were pelted in his house upon which his mother Maku
Mazian went outside and saw 5-6 persons pelting stones. She forbade
them but those persons inquired about him. He stated that when he
came out of the house those persons chased him to the courtyard, but
he ran back to his house and kept himself locked in a room and saw
that Chand Murmu, Sikhar Marandi, Rasad Murmu, Hema Marandi,
Baldeo Marandi and Nema Marandi armed with tangi, stones and
bricks were searching for him. When his mother objected, she was
assaulted with tangi by Sikhar Marandi and Nema Marandi. Upon
which, he ran outside screaming, but no one from the village came to
his rescue. The said incident was also seen by his wife and children.
Thereafter, he searched in vain for the Doctor and the chowkidar. He
went to the village and informed his relatives, thereafter, he went to
the police station. He further stated that the reason behind the
incident was land dispute between the informant and the appellant-
Sikhar Marandi.
5. On the aforesaid furdbeyan, Jamtara P.S. Case No.79 of 1997 was
registered under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The
police after investigation filed chargesheet against these appellants.
6. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to
the Court of Sessions. As the appellants pleaded not guilty, charge
was framed against these appellants under Sections 302/34 and 449
of the Indian Penal Code and the trial proceeded.
7. Altogether six witnesses have been examined in this case, who
are as follows:-
(i) P.W.-1 Dr. Balram Prasad
(ii) P.W.-2 Babulal Marandi
(iii) P.W.-3 Bahamani Murmu
(iv) P.W.-4 Fulkumari Marandi
(v) P.W.-5 Fuchu Ram Marandi
(vi) P.W.-6 Arun Kumar Rajak, Investigating Officer of this case
8. The following documentary evidences were also exhibited by the
prosecution:-
Exhibit-1 Postmortem report.
Exhibit-2 Fardbeyan
Exhibit-3 Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit- 4 Inquest Report
Exhibit-5 Seizure List.
9. P.W.-1, is the Doctor, who conducted the postmortem
examination of the deceased and found following antemortem
wounds:-
(i) Incised wound of 4" x 1" x bond deep up to cervical vertebra
with blood clot and sprinting of blood.
(ii) Incised wound over scapula 5" x 1" x 1" with blood clot.
(ii) Incised wound back medial to injury No.2 4" x 1" x 1" with
blood clot.
Internal appearance- (a)On opening the scalp and skull- no
fracture of skull line. Brain and meninges pale. (b) On opening the neck
trachea was cut transversally adjacent muscle and artery and vain were
cut with massive destruction of muscle. (c) On opening the chest right
plural cavity- full of blood. Left side in costarial part fifth, sixth, seven
ribs were fractured. Lungs- pale, heart- empty. (d) On opening the
abdomen- liver, spleen, kidney- pale. Stomach- about two ouns semi
digested food material mostly rice. Large and small intestine wall - full
of gases and fecal material. Urinary bladder- empty, uterus- N.A.D.
External genelatice- NAD.
He opined that the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock
due to injury No.1, 2 and 3 caused by sharp weapon like tangi. The
postmortem report was marked as Exhibit- 1.
P.W.-2 is the informant of this case. He stated that on the date
of occurrence at about 08.00 P.M., he, his wife, his daughter and his
mother were in his house and all of sudden, he heard sound of
pelting of stones, upon which his mother came out and saw some
persons. Upon objection they asked that they will kill Babulal. His
mother started abusing them upon which, they entered his house
and started searching for him. Due to fear, he locked himself in a
room and saw from the window that these appellants and other
accused assaulting his mother with tangi. He raised alarm when
the miscreants fled. On the next day, he went to the police station
where his statement was recorded. He stated that his father had
two wives. From first wife Sikhar Marandi was born and after the
death of first wife his father married his mother. His father had
partitioned the land and he has kept two Bigha land for his
maintenance. After the death of his father Sikhar Marandi wanted
to forcibly cultivate the said land. His mother refused to partition
the land and at the time also Sikhar Marandi has assaulted his
mother.
P.W.-3 is the wife of the informant. She stated that some
persons pelted stones and bricks on her house. Her mother-in-law
protested then the appellants and other persons entered in his
house and asked about her husband- Babulal. Her mother-in-law
question them as to what his son did, then the accused assaulted
her mother-in-law, who died. In her cross-examination, she stated
that when the stones and bricks started to fall in her house they
closed the door of their room and after half and hour when she
opened the door she found her mother-in-law dead.
P.W.-4 is the daughter of the informant. She stated that she
was present in the courtyard of her house along with her mother
and grand-mother and father were present in the courtyard. All of
a sudden, bricks and stones started to fall in their house. In the
meantime, her grand-mother opened the door, then accused
persons entered the house armed with tangi and lathi. She saw
from window that Sukar, Sikhar and Baldeo assaulted her grand-
mother with tangi whereas other accused persons assaulted her
with lathi, as a result, her grand-mother died.
P.W.-5 is declared hostile.
P.W.-6 is the Investigating Officer. He recorded the fardbeyan of
the informant, which was marked as Exhibit-2 and on the basis of
the said fardbeyan, the F.I.R. was registered, which was Exhibit-3.
Thereafter, he prepared the inquest report, which was marked as
Exhibit-4. He stated that on inspection, he found stones and mark
of blood courtyard of the informant. He recorded the restatement
and statement of other witnesses and finally after investigation
submitted the chargesheet.
10. After hearing the parties, I find that P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4
are the eye witness to the said occurrence. They had seen these
appellants along with others entering the premises of the informant
and thereafter, searching Babulal for killing him. The mother of the
deceased was there. P.W.-2 had seen the entire occurrence while
confining himself in the room for his safety. P.W.-3, who was also
in the house stated in the similar manner that she had seen these
appellants and others assaulting the deceased. She also confined
herself for the purpose of safety and when she opened the door,
she saw her mother-in-law dead. P.W.-4 also stated in the similar
manner. This clearly suggests that they are the eye witnesses as
there is nothing in their cross-examination to disbelieve them.
11. The Doctor found several incised wound, which would clearly
suggest that the deceased was assaulted with sharp cutting
weapon. From the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4, it is clear that axe
was used in the said assault. The place of the occurrence is the
house of the informant and the same is also proved by P.W.-6, the
Investigating Officer. As per the prosecution case and the evidence
of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, stones and bricks were pelted in the
house. The Investigating Officer found stones in the premises.
There was blood in the courtyard of the informant. As per the
evidence of P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.4, the assault upon the
deceased had taken place in the courtyard, thus, naturally blood
was found there.
12. All the aforesaid facts have been analyzed by the Trial Court
and thereafter the Trial Court had arrived at a conclusion that these
appellants are guilty of commission of murder. I find no material to
differ with the findings of the Trial Court. Accordingly, both these
Criminal Appeals are dismissed.
13. As the appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender
before the Trial Court. If the appellants do not surrender, the trial
court is directed to take appropriate step as per law.
14. Interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
15. Let the Trial Court record be transmitted to the Court
concerned along with a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J: I agree.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 23/01/2025
NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03.
