Charan Hansda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3218 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Charan Hansda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 11 March, 2025

Author: R. Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              Cr. Appeal (DB) No.92 of 2000

1.   Charan Hansda
2.   Chand Hansda
3.   Kalam Hansda
     All sons of Lurdhu Hansda, residents of village
     Narayanpur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur.---- Appellants
                            Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)             -----   Respondent
                           With
                 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.93 of 2000
1.   Sona Muni Hansda wife of Sanatan Hansda, resident
     of village Narayanpur, P.S. Maheshpur, District Pakur.
2.   Sanatan Sren son of Barka Soren, resident of village
     Durgapur, P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur. -----      Appellants
                            Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)            -----   Respondent

                         PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
                         -------
For the Appellants : Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, Adv.
For the State      : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P
                         -------

                      JUDGMENT

Per R. Mukhopadhyay, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kanti Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P.

2. Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are being disposed of by this common order.

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2000 passed by Mr. Vinay Kumar Sinha, Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur in Sessions Case No.75 of 1997 / 24 of 1997, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 I.P.C and have been sentenced to imprisonment for life.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the Fard Bayan of Phool Murmu recorded on 06.02.1996 in which it has been stated

that the husband of the informant namely Parmeshwar Hansda is the eldest of his five brothers. All the brothers stay separate with their families. It has been stated that in the village Bandhana festival was going on which ended yesterday. The informant has one son namely Lucas Hansda and one daughter namely Betty Hansda. On 05.02.1996 the entire family of the informant had dinner after which the son of the informant went to a nearby village to celebrate Bandhana festival. At about midnight, Sonamuni Hansda came and abused the informant and her family members making allegations against them of stealing utensils which was denied by the husband of the informant. At this, all the accused persons started abusing and assaulting the husband of the informant with fists and slaps. The husband of the informant was dragged outside and all the accused persons made concerted assault upon him. When on alarm raised by the informant, Babulal Murmu and others had arrived, at which the accused persons had left the place. The informant with the assistance of others had brought her husband home where he breathed his last.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Maheshpur P.S. Case No. 07 of 1996 was instituted under Sections 302 / 34 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 Sessions Case No. 75 of 1996 / 24 of 1997. Charge was framed against the accused under Sections 302 / 34 I.P.C which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

5. P.W.1 Betty Hansda has stated that she was in her house when Sonamuni came and started quarrelling with Parmeshwar Hansda. Along with Sonamuni were Sanatan, Charan, Kalai and Chand. She woke up on hearing the commotion. In course of quarrel, Charan had assaulted her father

who fell down after which the other accused persons dragged him towards the house of Sonamuni. She has stated that Sonamuni went inside her house and brought a knife and a Kulhari and stabbed her father with a knife. Sanatan had assaulted her father with a Kulhari on head while Chand assaulted with Lathi. She and her mother were the only ones present. She has stated that her mother had called Babulal and his wife and with their assistance, her father was brought back home where after having water, he died. The assault took place on account of the allegation that her father had stolen a utensil belonging to Sonamuni.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that her statement was recorded by the Police after one month of the incident. She had not taken the name of any of the persons before the Police. Except the houses of the accused, there are no other houses in the vicinity of her house. None of the villagers had come to her assistance when she had raised a cry of alarm.

6. P.W. 2 Lucas Hansda is the son of the deceased who has stated that in the night of the occurrence, he had gone to Kasir Tola where archery competition was being held on account of Sohrai festival. When he returned home in the morning, he found his father grievously hurt. He as well as his mother and others had made his father drink water after which he died. Babulal Murmu had disclosed to him about the name of the assailant.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his father had taken the name of Charan Hansda, Kalai Hansda, Chand Hansda, Sanatan Soren and Sonamuni Hansda as the assailants. When he had reached his house, there were no one from the village present.

7. P.W. 3 Babulal Murmu and P.W. 4 Dilimu Soren did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile by the prosecution.

8. P.W. 5 Dr. Bindu Bhushan has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 1.

9. P.W. 6 Ishwar Murmu was declared hostile by the prosecution.

10. P.W. 7 Lali Barnavas Hansda has stated that she does not know as to who had committed the murder. She and her son Benjamin had signed on the inquest report.

11. P.W. 8 Phool Murmu is the informant who has stated that her husband are five brothers and all live separately. On the date of the incident, she, her husband and daughter Betty Hansda were in the house while her son had gone to watch a function at Majhi Tola, when at around midnight, Sonamuni Hansda came and cast an insinuation that they have stolen her utensils. When her husband objected, Charan Hansda felled him on the ground and all the accused persons dragged him and took him near the house of Sonamuni. Sonamuni brought a knife and a Kulhari from her house and gave the Kulhari to Sanatan. Thereafter, Sonamuni stabbed her husband with the knife while Sanatan assaulted him with a Kulhari. The rest of the accused assaulted him with Lathi. Her husband as a result of the assault became unconscious. When she raised an alarm, she was threatened and assaulted also. On her calling, Babulal Soren and Dilimu Soren had come and when they objected, Charan and Kalai started assaulting him. The accused persons thereafter left. She and the others had brought her husband to the veranda of his house where he regained consciousness and asked for water and he died thereafter. Her Fard Bayan was recorded by the Police in the village.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that in the next morning, the Chowkidar had come to whom she had disclosed the entire incident. Several villagers had assembled when her husband was brought from the place of occurrence and was kept in the veranda, but she remembers the name of one Joseph Hansda and none other. Lucas had also come home when they had brought her husband and laid him on the veranda.

12. P.W. 9 Subodh Kumar Banerjee has proved the Fard Bayan which has been marked as exhibit 2.

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

14. Mr. K. K. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 are the material witnesses but their evidence is full of contradictions and ambiguities. Neither the Doctor has been examined nor the Investigating Officer which has caused prejudice to the defence. It has been submitted that P.W. 3 is one of the important witnesses but he has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

15. Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P has submitted that all the appellants, in a predetermined fashion, had committed a concerted assault upon the husband of the informant which fact has been supported by P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8.

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

17. It was at the dead of night when the appellants by casting insinuation upon Parmeshwar Hansda, the husband of the informant of having stolen the utensils of Sonamuni Hansda had committed assault upon Parmeshwar Hansda and dragged him near the house of Sonamuni Hansda who had brought a knife and a Kulhari from inside the house and while handing over the Kulhari to Sanatan she had stabbed him with the knife while Sanatan gave him a Kulhari blow and the others committed assault upon Parmeshwar Hansda with Lathis. Although P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 8 have been highlighted by the prosecution to be the material witnesses, but so far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he seems to have gone to a nearby locality to watch Sohrai festival. Although P.W. 2 has stated that when he returned home in the morning his father was still alive and had disclosed about the name of the assailants, but it seems that P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 have stated that

the assault had taken place around midnight after which Parmeshwar Hansda was brought home and after having water he died. It would, therefore, seem that when P.W. 2 had returned home, his father was already dead by then. However, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 8 are consistent with respect to the assault committed. The identification of the appellants are also not in doubt as all are related to the informant. The manner of assault is corroborated in the post-mortem report.

18. The Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined by the prosecution but the defence has failed to address the issue as to how it has been prejudiced by such non- examination. It is apparent that all the appellants had harboured a common intention and in a pre-planned manner had committed assault upon Parmeshwar Hansda leading to his death.

19. The learned trial court has considered all aspects of the matter while convicting the appellants and sentencing them accordingly vide the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 22.01.2000. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss these appeals.

20. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Arun Kumar Rai, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 11th March, 2025 Shamim/-