Bablu Marandi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3140 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Bablu Marandi vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 6 March, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 466 of 1999(P)
         (Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence
         dated 07.09.1999 (sentence passed on 09.09.1999) passed by
         Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge,
         Godda in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998.)

         Bablu Marandi, S/o Mangal Marandi, R/o Vill- Baro Mal
         Bhita, P.S. Boarijore, Dist. Godda.
                                             ...        Appellant
                                      Versus

         The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)        ...       Respondent
                                   ----

                                  PRESENT
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                                   ----
         For the Appellant    : Mrs. Shail Lakra, Amicus
         For the Respondent : Mr. Shailesh Kr. Sinha, A.P.P.
                                    ----
                          Dated : 06/03/2025

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

1. Heard Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned amicus curiae for the appellant and Mr. Shailendra Kr. Sinha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1999 (sentence passed on 09.09.1999) passed by Sri Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Mangal Marandi recorded on 16.11.1996 in which it has been stated that on 15.11.1996 at 4:00P.M., he had gone to ask for his ox from his son Lakhiram, but he refused and, in the meantime, the other son of the informant, namely, Bablu Marandi (appellant) had also arrived at the scene. It has been stated that Lakhiram disclosed that since the informant had not given him the jewellery and woods, he will not return the ox. There was an altercation between the informant and Lakhiram Marandi which turned into an assault committed by Lakhiram with a lathi upon the informant and when the informant raised a cry of alarm, his wife Dhena Soren came, who reprimanded both the accused for assaulting their father. This enraged Lakhiram and Bablu Marandi who committed indiscriminate assault upon Dhena Soren and when the informant went to the rescue of his wife, he was also assaulted with lathi. Due to the commotion, several villagers had assembled. At around midnight, Dhena Soren died.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Boarijore P.S. case No. 73/96 was instituted under Section 307/34 and 302/34 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 S.C. No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 IPC and 307/34 IPC which was read over and explained to them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

P.W.1 Man Singh Marandi, P.W.2 Sonaram Hansda, P.W.3 Sanat Marandi, P.W.4 Talamai Marandi and P.W.5 Ram Hansda did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.6 Jarman Baski has stated that Mangal Marandi had narrated to the Officer-in-Charge in his presence that he had a quarrel with his sons and thereafter, they had assaulted him. He has identified his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had no knowledge about the occurrence except what had been disclosed by Mangal Marandi to the Officer-in-Charge.

P.W.7 Betka Marandi is the younger brother of both the accused who has stated that he came to know about the incident after he returned home from his in-laws' place. His mother was

2|Page unconscious and his father had disclosed that Lakhiram had assaulted his mother with lathi and he was also subjected to assault. His mother died in the same night.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his father was speaking slowly though he was unconscious.

P.W.8 Mangal Marandi is the informant who has stated that when he asked Lakhiram to give back his ox, Lakhiram instead gave him lathi blows. When his wife came to see him, she was assaulted with lathi by both the accused persons. He was unconscious as such, he could not see as to who had assaulted whom. His wife fell down due to the assault. After regaining composure, both came back to their house. His wife died after sunset because of the assault.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that due to the assault, he had fallen down and had become unconscious.

P.W.9 Dr. K.N. Chaudhary was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Godda and on 18.11.1996, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Dhena Soren and had found the following:

                       (i)     One bruise over the right cheek 10 x 8
                               cms.
                       (ii)    Fracture   of   right   maxilla   and   right
                               mandible ramus.
                       (iii)   One bruise over left cheek 9 x 7 cms.
                       (iv)    One bruise on the right side of neck 9 x 8
                               cms.
                       (v)     Defused bruise over whole forehead.
                       (vi)    Small uncountable bruises over the body
                               surface.

The cause of death was opined to be on account of shock and hemorrhage as a result of the aforesaid injuries, ultimately leading to cardiorespiratory failure and death. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

P.W.10 Mohammed Anwar Khan was posted as an Officer-in- Charge of Boarijore P.S. and on 16.11.1996, he had heard of a murder having taken place at village Mal Bhita and after recording a station

3|Page diary entry, he had reached the village along with other police personnel for verification of the said information. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Mangal Marandi which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. The formal FIR has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 3/1. The inquest report has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Mal Bhita in the house of the informant and on the western side in the veranda was a "Dhenki". The assault is said to have taken place on the western side of the veranda in an alley. He had recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statements of the other witnesses. The body of Dhena Marandi was sent to the hospital for autopsy. After obtaining the post-mortem report and the injury report and on direction of his superior authority, he had submitted charge sheet. Man Singh had stated that Mangal Marandi had disclosed about the incident to him. Sonaram Hansda had also stated about the disclosure made to him about the incident by Mangal Marandi. Similar were the statements of Sanat Marandi, Talamai Marandi and Ram Hansda.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not found any article or blood-stained earth at the place of occurrence. There was no blood on the dhenki also.

5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder.

6. This appeal has abated so far as Lakhiram Marandi is concerned, vide order dated 14.12.2023 and Bablu Marandi is the only surviving appellant.

7. It has been submitted by Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned amicus curiae that the only eyewitness to the occurrence is the informant (P.W.8), but at the time of the assault committed upon Dhena Soren, he was in an unconscious state. It has been submitted that several of the material witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution.

8. Mr. Shailesh Kumar Sinha, learned A.P.P. has relied upon the evidence of P.W.8 while submitting that P.W.8 is an injured witness as well, who has noted the presence of both the accused who had committed assault upon him and thus it can be inferred that it was

4|Page the appellant also who was involved in committing assault upon the deceased Dhena Soren.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

10. The charge against the accused under Section 307/34 IPC could not be proved on account of the non-examination of the doctor and the injury report of the informant having not been brought on record. The appellant has, however, been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced accordingly.

11. The case of the prosecution primarily relies upon the evidence of the informant (P.W.8), who claims himself to be an injured eyewitness. In the fardbeyan, he has alleged about the indiscriminate assault committed by both the accused upon the deceased when she reprimanded them for committing assault upon their father. However, P.W.8 during trial, has stated in his cross-examination that due to the assault he had become unconscious. In fact, in his chief also he had stated about not having seen who had committed assault and where. It has to be borne in mind that the initial altercation had started with Lakhiram Marandi and it was Lakhiram Marandi who had a grudge against P.W.8 and it was he, who had assaulted P.W.8. The presence of the appellant has been noted, though on account of being unconscious, P.W.8 was unable to specify the role played by the appellant in the assault upon the deceased Dhena Soren. Moreover, all the witnesses to whom P.W.8 had disclosed about the involvement of the appellants in committing assault upon Dhena Soren being P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 have all been declared hostile by the prosecution. Even otherwise, when P.W.8 has himself admitted to have become unconscious, his mentioning the name of the appellant as one of the assailants, is clearly an exaggeration. The learned trial court has not considered the inherent flaws in the evidence of P.W.8 while convicting the appellant.

12. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 07.09.1999 (sentence passed on 09.09.1999) passed by Sri

5|Page Mungeshwar Sahoo, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 195 of 1997/106 of 1998.

13. This appeal is allowed.

14. Since the appellant is on bail, he is discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

15. Pending I.A.s, if any, stands closed.

16. Before parting with this order, we must appreciate the assistance rendered by Mrs. Shail Lakra, learned amicus curiae and direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to the learned amicus curiae within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

17. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, immediately and forthwith.

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

(ARUN KUMAR RAI, J.)

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 6th Day of March, 2025 Preet/N.A.F.R.

6|Page