Fakira Munda vs The State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand
2025 Latest Caselaw 3865 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Fakira Munda vs The State Of Bihar Now Jharkhand on 12 June, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                        Neutral Citation No. ( 2025:JHHC:15558-DB )



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                     Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R)

    Fakira Munda, son of Late Dhurwa Munda, resident of village: Bucha Toli,
    Police Station: Jagarnathpur, District: Ranchi    ... Appellant
                                       -Versus-
    The State of Bihar now Jharkhand                     ...Respondent

    CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

    For the Appellant  : Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate
    For the State      : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
                                    ...
    CAV on: 21/01/2025                   Pronounced on: 12/06/2025
Per, R.Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, learned Spl.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16.06.1997 and 19.06.1997 respectively passed by Sri Alok Kumar Sinha, learned VIth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 301 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo RI for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Chhotka Munda recorded on 14.01.1994 in which it has been stated that on 13.01.1994 at 5:30 p.m. he had heard a commotion outside and when he came out he saw his son Mangu Munda involved in a quarrel and abuses with Fakira Munda. The informant had rushed to the said place but before he could reach and prevent the incident the accused person had assaulted his son on his head with a Dhelforwa which resulted in the son of the informant falling down on the ground. The accused had fled away from the place of occurrence on a bicycle. When the informant raised a cry of alarm his family members and other villagers rushed to the place of occurrence. Before the son of the informant could be shifted to a hospital, he had breathed his last.

Based on the aforesaid allegation, Jagarnathpur PS Case No. 09 of 1994 was instituted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. On completion of

1 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R) 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. 301 of 1994. Charge was framed against the accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.

5. PW-1 Rupan Mundain has stated that at 3:00 p.m. Fakira Munda had come to the Akhara and had threatened his brother Mangu Munda of committing his murder. Her brother went to the field and after returning he went to the Akhara. Fakira Munda had come to the Akhara with a Dhelforwa. She was at that point of time sitting in the door. When she saw Fakira Munda coming with a Dhelforwa she raised a cry of alarm at which the inmates of the house came out. She had seen Fakira Munda assaulting Mangu with a Dhelforwa on his head and he had thereafter fled away. Her brother died in the Akhara itself.

In cross-examination she has deposed that she does not know the reason for the quarrel between her brother and the accused. The quarrel had taken place at 3:00 p.m. When the quarrel had taken place her brother had already consumed liquor. At 4:00 p.m. her brother had gone to the field and she had also gone with him. Both returned together. She had not asked her brother about the quarrel which had ensued between him and Fakira Munda. She had seen Fakira coming on a bicycle. Her brother was still sleeping when Fakira had come. In the carrier of the bicycle a Dhelforwa was kept. She had not stated before the police that Fakira had come with a Dhelforwa and started abusing her brother. She has stated before the police that on hearing the call of distress her father had gone out of the house to pacify the situation. She had not seen her brother quarrel with Fakira at 5:30 p.m. She had not heard exchange of abuses between her brother and Fakira. It is true that she had not given any statement before the police relating to abuses and threats issued by Fakira Munda.

6. PW-2 Chumani Mundain has stated that at 5:30 p.m. on the date of occurrence she was in her house along with her husband and sister-in-law Gangi. Her daughter Rupan was sitting in the door. On hearing a commotion they had come out of the house and had gone to the Akhara. Mangu was sitting in the Akhara. When she came out of the house she saw Fakira having assaulted Mangu with a Dhelforwa. Fakira thereafter fled away. Mangu died

2 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R) at the place of occurrence after some time.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that her husband had returned home at 4:00 p.m. Rupan had come to have lunch at 12:00 p.m. and she left at 3:00 p.m. Rupan had returned at 4:00 p.m. When she had reached the Akhara she had found her son in an unconscious state. After ten minutes he died. Her husband had reached the Akhara before her. She had reached the Akhara after five minutes from the time her husband had reached and Gangi had reached ten minutes after she had reached. Rupan had reached after ten- fifteen minutes. She had seen Fakira fleeing away. Fakira had fled away after leaving the Dhelforwa in the Akhara itself.

7. PW-3 Kantu Munda has been tendered by the prosecution.

8. PW-4 Gangi Mundain has stated that she was in the house of her brother Chhotka. When she heard the cry of alarm of her brother she rushed out and saw Fakira assaulting Mangu with a Dhelforwa on his head. Mangu died due to the assault. Fakira had fled away leaving the Dhelforwa behind.

In cross-examination she has deposed that her husband had deserted her. She stays at her brother's place since childhood. She had not seen the quarrel between Mangu and Fakira. She had not seen the assault. By the time she had reached the Akhara Mangu was already dead by then.

9. PW-5 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu was posted as a Medical Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH and on 14.01.1994 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mangu Munda and had found the following injuries :

(a) Abrasions:-

(i) 3 x 2 cm, 3x3 cm over right cheek.

(ii) 2 x 2 cm left cheek.

Lacerated wound:-

(i) 2 x 1 cm x soft tissue over left cheek.

(ii) 4 x 1 cm x bone deep over left temporal area.

(b) On internal examination:

There is dufuse contusion of right and left temporal scalp, temporal is muscles and left parietal scalp. There is a depressed and communated fracture left parieto temporal bone measuring 6 x 4 cm area. The fracture line extends to the base of the brain.

There is expandural blood clot and subdural blood and blood clot on left side of brain. There is fracture of lower jaw of the right side.

(c) All the injuries are ante-mortem caused by hard and blunt substance may be Dhelforwa. Death is due to head injury. Time elapsed since death is between 6 to 24 hours from the time of post-mortem examination."

The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.1.

3 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R)

10. PW-6 Chhotka Munda is the informant and the father of the deceased who has stated that it was 5:00 p.m. when his son Mangu and Fakira were quarreling with each other. He was going towards the Akhara to pacify the situation when he saw the accused giving a blow on the left side of the head of his son with a Dhelforwa. The accused thereafter fled away on a bicycle. When he raised an alarm several persons had assembled. Before Mangu could be taken to the hospital he died. On the next day police had come and his fardbeyan was recorded.

In cross-examination he has deposed that there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. There was no person present in the Akhara when the incident had occurred. He does not know the reason for the quarrel. He had seen the assault. The accused was abusing his son and the son had also abused Fakira.

11. PW-7 Bhavwa Munda has been tendered by the prosecution.

12. PW-8 Akhilesh Kumar was posted as Sub Inspector of Police in Jagarnathpur Police Station and on 14.01.1994 in the morning he had received an information that a person has been murdered in Nawatoli. After making a station diary entry he had gone to the place of occurrence for verification. He had met Chhotka Munda who had disclosed that his son Mangu Munda has been murdered by Fakira Munda with the help of Dhelforwa. He has proved the fardbeyan of Chhotka Munda which has been marked as Ext.2. He has proved the signatures of Nand Kishore Munda and Raghu Munda in the fardbeyan which have been marked as Ext.3 and 3/1 respectively. The endorsement in the fardbeyan has been marked as Ext.4. The hand writing and signature of Sub Inspector Shriniwas Singh in the endorsement has been proved and marked as Ext.4/1. The formal FIR has been marked as Ext.5. He had taken over the investigation of the case and had inspected the place of occurrence. The inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext.6. The signatures of Ratia Munda and Nand Kishore Munda in the inquest report have been proved and marked as Ext.3/2 and 3/3 respectively. The dead body of Mangu was sent to RMCH for conducting post-mortem. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is the southern part of the Akhara situated in village Nawatoli. There was a pool of blood found at the place of occurrence. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He had proved the seizure list of seized blood stained earth and the Dhelforwa which has been marked as Ext.7. The signatures of Nand Kishore Munda and Raghu Munda on the

4 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R) seizure list have been proved and marked as Ext.3/4 and 3/5 respectively. He had obtained the post-mortem report. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi. He had proved the forwarding letter which has been marked as Ext.8. On completion of investigation he had submitted charge-sheet.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the report from the forensic science laboratory had not been received.

13. The statement of accused was recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he has denied his complicity in the commission of murder of Mangu Munda.

14. It has been submitted by Mr. Naveen Kumar Jaiswal, the learned counsel for the appellant that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. PW-6 claims herself to be an eye-witness but so far as PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-4 are concerned, they have exaggerated their evidence with respect to the assault committed by the appellant upon the deceased. It has been submitted that even if it is assumed that it was the appellant who had committed the assault the same cannot be said to be premeditated and had occurred at the spur of the moment and therefore at best a case under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant.

15. Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, the learned Spl.P.P. has submitted that there are several eye-witnesses to the assault committed by the appellant upon the deceased with a Dhelforwa. The quarrel had taken place at 3:00 p.m. while the assault had been committed at 5:00 p.m. which would mean that there was a specific intent on the part of the appellant to do away with the life of Mangu Munda and this circumstance has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court while rejecting the plea of the appellant that at best a case under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code is made out against the appellant.

16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial Court records.

17. The fardbeyan of the informant (PW-6) reveals about the informant having witnessed the assault committed by the appellant upon his son with a Dhelforwa on head. This assault resulted in the death of Mangu Munda. He had also stated about raising an alarm after which his family members had arrived at the spot. The informant has been consistent inasmuch as while giving his evidence as PW-6 he had stated about the arrival of several persons at the place of occurrence. PW-6 had not stated about the presence of other inmates of his house when the incident of assault had taken place. PW-1 is the

5 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R) sister of the deceased who has given a contrary version to the effect that it was she who had seen the assault and had raised a cry of alarm at which the inmates of the house had come out. PW-2 is the mother of the deceased who has given a generalized version that on hearing the cry of alarm everyone had rushed out from the house. In her cross-examination she has deposed about finding her son in an unconscious state when she had reached the place of occurrence which rules out her claim of being an eye-witness. In fact, her cross-examination further reveals that she and the other inmates of the house had reached the place of occurrence much after the informant had reached. The entirety of the evidence of the witnesses would signify that PW-6 is the only eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of PW-6 is consistent, cogent and free from any improvement and therefore being a solitary eye- witness to the assault his evidence can be fully relied upon to come to a just conclusion. We therefore come to the conclusion that it was the appellant whose act of assault with a Dhelforwa was the cause of death of Mangu Munda.

18. We now turn to the alternative argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is a case which encompasses the ingredients prompting a conviction under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. It is the consistent case of the defence that the assault was not unprovoked but as a result of quarrel and abuses hurled at each other by the appellant and the deceased. From the cross-examination of PW-2 it transpires that she, PW-1 and PW-4 had reached the place of occurrence after a significant lapse of time though she had acknowledged that PW-6 was the first person to arrive at the place of occurrence. The learned trial Court has relied upon the evidence of PW-1 who has given a time gap of more than two hours between the quarrel and the assault. PW-1 has stated that she had gone to the field and had returned with the deceased but on the way she had not asked him about the reasons for the quarrel. In fact none of the witnesses have thrown any light regarding the motive or the cause of quarrel and they have also remained silent about the existence of any animosity between the appellant and the deceased. Incidentally it is PW-1 who had stated that the deceased had consumed liquor on the date of occurrence. The overall conspectus of the case would rule out any of the witnesses having seen the quarrel except PW-6. PW- 6 on knowing about the quarrel had a natural reaction to the same of rushing out to pacify the situation but before he could intervene the assault had already been committed and the appellant thereafter had fled away. Dhelforwa which

6 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R) is a mace like wooden object used by the villagers. The appellant was having the same in the carrier of his vehicle and in course of quarrel he had given a single blow on the head of the deceased. Though two lacerated wounds were found on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance but the same can be construed to be on account of a single blow on the left side of head. Therefore, there was no repetition of blows and considering the entire gamut of the evidence of the witnesses it clearly transpires that the intent of the appellant was not premeditated but was an act of sudden rush of blood due to the abuses and quarrel which ensued between the appellant and the deceased. The conviction of the appellant is therefore modified to one under section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. So far as the sentence is concerned, we must take into consideration that the appellant has faced the rigors of the case for more than three decades. He has also remained in custody for some time. We therefore modify the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone.

19. This appeal is disposed of by modifying the conviction and consequently the sentence upon the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

20. Pending IA, if any, stands closed.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, Dated:12 /06 /2025 S.B.

7 Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 165 of 1997 (R)