Rupu Linda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
2025 Latest Caselaw 3221 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Rupu Linda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 11 March, 2025

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

                              Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 302 of 1999(R)
                                               With
                              Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 116 of 2000(R)

                         Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
                  06.08.1999 passed by Shri Maheshwar Thakur, learned 2nd Additional
                  Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 534 of 1995

                  Rupu Linda, son of late Turi Linda, resident of Village Purana Rampur,
                  P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi
                                                                      ...   Appellant
                                           (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 302 of 1999(R)

                  Jelhi Linda, wife of Rupu Linda, resident of Village Purana Rampur,
                  P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi
                                           (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 116 of 2000(R)
                                      Versus
                  1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)
                  2. Duggi Linda, wife of Mangra Linda, resident of Village Purana
                     Rampur, P.S. Namkom, District Ranchi
                                                                     ...     Respondent
                                         (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 302 of 1999(R)
                  1. The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)            ...       Respondent
                                        (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 116 of 2000(R)
                                                   ----

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI

For the Appellant : Ms. Tanu Kumari, Advocate (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 302 of 1999(R) Ms. Ashwani Priya, Advocate (In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 116 of 2000(R) For the Respondent (State) : Mrs. Kumari Ramshi, A.P.P. (In both cases)

CAV on 11.02.2025 Delivered On 11.03.2025

---

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. : 1. Heard Ms. Tanu Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 302 of 1999(R), Ms. Ashwani Priya learned Amicus Curiae In Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 116 of 2000(R) and Mrs. Kumari Ramshi, learned APP.

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

1|Page

3. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.08.1999 passed by Shri Maheshwar Thakur, learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 534 of 1995, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

4. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Duggi Linda in which it has been stated that the husband of the informant, namely, Mangra Linda was staying in her village after his retirement from the Army about 5 years back. There was some litigation going on between the husband of the informant and his brother Rupu Linda with respect to some land. Though there was a settlement of the dispute but the accused persons were looking for an opportunity to harm the husband of the informant. It has been alleged on 02.04.1995 Jelhi Linda had an altercation with the informant and when the husband of the informant protested, he was thrown on the ground and assaulted with fists and kicks by Jelhi Linda. A brick was thrown on the face of the husband of the informant which hit him near the right eyebrow. It has been alleged that the accused persons ultimately strangulated the husband of the informant to death.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Namkum P.S. Case No. 32/1995 was instituted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the I.P.C. On completion of the 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. 534 of 1995. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the I.P.C. and against the accused Jelhi Linda additionally u/s 323 I.P.C. which were read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven (7) witnesses in support of its case.

P.W. 1 Dr. Ram Sewak Sahu was posted as a Medical Officer in the Department of Forensic Medicine, RMCH, Ranchi and on 03.04.1995 he had

2|Page conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mangra Linda and had found the following :

1. Abrasions -

i) 4 X 3 cm, 5 X 3 cm, 3 X 2 cm on right shoulder and scapular region.

(ii) 5 X 2 cm on right arm lower part.

(iii) 3 X 1 cm on right lateral chest lower part.

(iv) 3 X 1 cm on right lateral chest.

(v) 5 X 4 cm on left knee front.

(vi) 2 X 2 cm on left shoulder top.

(vii) 3 X 2 cm, 2 X 2 cm on left cheek.

(vii) 3 x 2 cm on left forehead.

(ix) 4 x 2 cm on right cheek.

(x) 2 x 1 cm on right lateral neck.

2. Lacerated wounds:

2 x 1 cm x soft tissue on right eye brow.

3. Internal examination-

There was diffuse contusion of soft tissue of forehead and both temporalist muscles. There was presence of sub dural blood and blood clots ever both sides of brain with contusion of brain.

All the injuries were antemortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. The cause of death was opined to be on account of head injury. The postmortem report has been proved and marked as Ext. 1.

In cross examination he has deposed that he had not found any signs of strangulation.

P.W. 2 Dashmi Linda has stated that it was 5 p.m. and she was in the courtyard when a quarrel took place between Jelhi Lindia and Duggi Linda and when her uncle Mangra Linda wanted to call other persons, Rupu Linda assaulted him with legs and fists. Both Rupu Linda and Jelhi Linda climbed on the chest of Mangra Lindia and committed assault upon him. In the evening Mangra Linda breathed his last.

In cross examination she has deposed that her uncles are three brothers; Mangra, Rupu and Etwa. All the brothers have separate rooms but the

3|Page courtyard is common. Earlier there used to be quarrels between the brothers with respect to partition of property. Prior to this occurrence, Mangra Munda had assaulted Rupu Linda for which a Panchayati was held and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed. On the date of the incident, Mangra and Rupu had consumed Hariya. She has further deposed that Mangra, Rupu and her father had consumed Hariya at her place. All were in an intoxicated state. Her aunt had assaulted Mangra with a piece of brick on his head. The police had recorded her statement though she had not stated that the accused persons had climbed on the chest of her uncle. She or the others had not raised any alarm at the time of the incident.

P.W. 3 Fulo Linda has stated that it was 5 p.m. and she was in the courtyard when Jelhi Linda had assaulted Duggi Linda. Her uncle Rupu Linda had assaulted and felled Mangra Linda on the ground and thereafter Jelhi Linda and Rupu Linda had assaulted her aunt on the head with a tile. Her uncle Mangra Linda died at the spot itself.

In cross examination he has deposed that it was the day of Sarhul and her uncle had one glass of Hariya and left after which the accused persons continued to have Hariya in her house. She has also deposed that Jelhi Lindia had assaulted Duggi.

P.W. 4 Duggi Linda has stated that it was 5 p.m. and she was preparing Roti when Jelhi started abusing and when she objected, she was caught by her hair and subjected to assault by Jelhi. When her husband showed his desire to call other persons, Rupu caught hold of her husband and by throwing him on the ground started committing assault upon him. She has stated that Jelhi left her and joined her husband in committing assault upon Mangra Linda. Jelhi had given a blow on the head of her husband with a brick which resulted in his death. The incident of assault was witnessed by Fulo Linda, Dashmi Linda and others. She has proved her signature in the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1.

In cross examination she has deposed that there was no reason for the occurrence. Several persons had assembled at the time of the incident. Nothing was seized by the police except a piece of brick and Gamchha.

4|Page P.W. 5 Sukra Aadi has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 1/1.

P.W. 6 Baijnath Pahan has also proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 1/2.

P.W. 7 Maheshwar Jha was posted as a Sub Inspector of Police at Namkum P.S. and on 03.04.1995 he had recorded the Fardbeyan of Duggi Linda. He had taken over the investigation of the case. He has proved the Fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. which have been marked as Ext. 3 and 4 respectively. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Village Rampur in the joint courtyard of Mangra Linda and Rupu Linda. He had found blood at the place of occurrence. He had prepared a seizure list and inquest report which have been marked as Ext. 5 and 6 respectively. He had recorded the statement of the witnesses and on completion of investigation had submitted charge sheet.

In cross examination he has deposed that he had not enquired about any land dispute, the mention of which has been made in the Fardbeyan. He had not seized any part of brick or tile.

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

7. It has been submitted by Ms. Tanu Kumari and Ms. Ashwani Priya, learned Amicus Curiae that contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses have diluted the case of the prosecution. It has been submitted that there seems to be an abundance of eye witnesses, but no body appears to have raised an alarm or seek help from the neighbours. The postmortem report reveals that no sign of strangulation was detected which in fact totally demolishes the case of the prosecution. The investigation officer has not seized any incriminating articles from the place of occurrence and all the circumstances prove the innocence of the appellants.

8. Mrs. Kumari Ramshi, learned APP has submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 are reliable and consistent and their evidence reveals about the manner in which the assault had taken place.

5|Page

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

10. The evidence of the witnesses reveals that after the accused and the victim had Hariya and were in an intoxicated state the scene turned into a brawl with Jelhi Linda assaulting the informant by catching hold of her hair and when the deceased Mangra Linda wanted to seek outside help, both the appellants assaulted him with fists and legs and climbed on his chest and had also struck a blow with a piece of brick on the head of Mangra Linda leading to his death. The allegation of strangulation made in the Fardbeyan has been completely demolished by the evidence of P.W. 1 who has stated that he had not found any signs of strangulation in the body of Mangra Linda. As per P.W. 2, there used to be quarrels between Rupu Linda, Etwa Linda and Mangra Linda with respect to partition of the property. Be it noted that all three are brothers who stayed in separate rooms, but shared a common courtyard. An instance of the undercurrent of tension prevailing between the deceased and Rupu Linda has been elicited by P.W. 2 as on committing an assault on Rupu Linda by Mangra Munda, a Panchayati was convened earlier and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed.

11. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution although there were several houses in the vicinity and all the eye witnesses are related to the deceased and the veracity of their evidence is always in the realm of doubt and in such context, reference has been made to the case of Krishnegowda and others v. State of Karnataka reported in (2017) 13 SCC 98 in which it has been held as follows:-

32. It is to be noted that all the eyewitnesses were relatives and the prosecution failed to adduce reliable evidence of independent witnesses for the incident which took place on a public road in the broad daylight.

Although there is no absolute rule that the evidence of related witnesses has to be corroborated by the evidence of independent witnesses, it would be trite in law to have independent witnesses when the evidence of related eyewitnesses is found to be incredible and not trustworthy. The minor variations and contradictions in the evidence of the

6|Page eyewitnesses will not tilt the benefit of doubt in favour of the accused but when the contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses proves to be fatal to the prosecution case then those contradictions go to the root of the matter and in such cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt.

12. Though it is a fact that the case of the prosecution totally relies upon the evidence of the relatives of the deceased, but on an overall conspectus, their evidence barring a few minor contradictions are cogent, consistent, natural and have withstood the test of cross examination. Some exaggeration though was made in the Fardbeyan with respect to the deceased being strangulated to death which as we have demonstrated above based on the evidence of P.W. 1, is not the fact but the manner of assault and the participation of the appellants in such assault have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt. However, at the same time, we must take into consideration that the assault was not premeditated or preconceived. The incident was the fall out of a simmering tension between the parties and the intake of liquor perhaps precipitated the desire on the part of the appellants to settle old scores. None of the appellants had any weapon in their hand and had used fists and kicks as the weapon of assault as also a brick to commit such assault. Such fact scenario would dilute the offence to one u/s 304 Part II I.P.C. The learned trial court has not considered this aspect of the matter in its proper perspective.

13. We, therefore, on the basis of the discussions made herein above modify the conviction imposed upon the appellants by the learned trial court to one u/s 304 Part II I.P.C. and consequently sentence the appellants to the period already undergone.

14. Both these appeals stand disposed of with the aforesaid modification in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 06.08.1999 passed by Shri Maheshwar Thakur, learned 2nd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 534 of 1995.

15. We appreciate the assistance rendered by Ms. Tanu Kumari, learned Amicus Curiae and Ms. Ashwani Priya learned Amicus Curiae and consequently direct the Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services

7|Page Committee to extend the stipulated fees to both the learned counsel within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this judgment.

16. Office is directed to ensure that the copy of this judgment is supplied 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 11th March, 2025 MK/N.A.F.R.

8|Page