Babu Ram Hansdah vs The State of Jharkhand

I have already heard the arguments of Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Shweta Singh, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.2007 and 11.12.2007 respectively, passed by learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2004, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty for the offences under Sections 304 Part-II of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal, as per fardbeyan of the informant, Suniram Marandi (deceased), is that on 28.08.2003 (Thursday), at about 02:00 P.M., the accused Baburam Hansda was going with his bullock cart through the maize field of the informant. The informant stopped him and told him that the maize crops would be damaged if he took the bullock cart from the field. A heated discussion ensued between them, during the course of which the accused, Baburam Hansda, gave two lathi blows (Hurra) to the stomach and chest of the informant. The informant sustained injuries and raised alarm, upon which his father (P.W.-3) and brothers (P.W.s-2, 4 & 5) reached there and saved him. They took the injured informant to the hospital for treatment. During the course of his treatment, the informant died.

On the basis of above fardbeyan, Shikaripara P.S. Case No. 64 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 341 and 323 of the I.P.C. against the accused. Later on, Section 307 of the I.P.C. was also added in the F.I.R.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 341 and 304 of the I.P.C. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 196 of 2004 was registered. The accused denied from the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by prosecution:-

On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and false implication only on the basis of suspicion and pleaded innocence. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offence under Sections 304 Part-II of the I.P.C and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.

Assailing the impugned judgment, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable either in law or on the facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the material contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws. 2, 3, 4 and 5. It is also submitted that P.Ws. 6 and 8, though independent witnesses, are hearsay witnesses and their evidence does not corroborate the prosecution case, particularly when P.W.-6 stated that the deceased was sleeping and had not disclosed anything regarding the occurrence. It is also submitted that the finding that P.W.-5 had witnessed the occurrence is erroneous, as he reached the place of occurrence thereafter and merely saw the deceased catching his abdomen, while P.W.-3 expressly stated that he had not seen the occurrence. It is further submitted that the presence of P.Ws. 2 and 4 at the place of occurrence is doubtful in view of the F.I.R. The post-mortem report could not have been given undue weight, as P.W.-10 admitted that he neither conducted the post-mortem nor prepared the report. It is also submitted that P.Ws. 1 and 10 opined that the injury could have been caused by the horn of an animal, which possibility is consistent with the F.I.R. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased died after about one and a half months on 12.10.2003. Hence, the learned trial court failed to properly scrutinize the evidence and materials on record, resulting in erroneous findings and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and appellant deserves acquittal from the charges levelled against him, allowing this appeal.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of appellant and submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of material available on record, therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant and no merits in this appeal which is fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

The only point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interference in this appeal?”

Before imparting my verdict on above point, it is desirable to take brief resume of ocular testimony of witnesses examined in this case.

P.W.-2, Thakur Marandi is the younger brother of the (deceased). According to this witness, the incident took place in the month of August during the afternoon. At that time, he was present in the village lane. He heard a commotion that Suniram was preventing Baburam Hansdah from taking his bullock cart through the lane, asking him not to proceed that way. He immediately ran to the place of occurrence. There, he saw Baburam Hansdah thrusting a lathi into Suniram’s abdomen, as a result of which Suniram fell down. Thereafter, Baburam fled from the spot. This witness then brought Suniram home and subsequently took him to Mohan Pahadi Hospital for treatment. During the course of treatment, Suniram died.

P.W.-3, Durga Marandi is the father of the deceased. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was at his home. On hearing a commotion, he went to the field and saw Baburam Hansdah thrusting a lathi into the stomach of his son, Suniram, as a result of which Suniram fell down. Thereafter, Baburam Hansdah fled from the spot. This witness brought his son home and subsequently took him to Mohan Pahadi Hospital for treatment. However, during the course of treatment, his son succumbed to the injuries sustained by him due to the lathi blow.

P.W.-4-Herbet Maranadi has deposed that at the time of incident, he was in the village lane and saw Baburam driving a bullock cart past Mithai Murmu’s maize field. While Baburam was passing the maize field with the cart, Suniram objected to him. Baburam then got down from the cart and struck Suniram in the stomach with a lathi, causing him to fall to the ground. Thereafter, Baburam fled from the spot. Suniram was initially taken home and Baburam was summoned there. Suniram stated that Baburam would arrange for his treatment at Mohan Pahadi Hospital. Subsequently, Suniram underwent surgery at Mohan Pahadi Hospital but passed away approximately two months later.

P.W.-5, Munshi Marandi has deposed that he was present in the village lane, when he heard Suniram shouting. On hearing his cries, he went to the place of occurrence and found Suniram holding his stomach. When asked what had happened, Suniram told him that Baburam had assaulted him by giving two blows with a lathi on his stomach. Thereafter, Suniram was taken to Mohan Pahadi Hospital for treatment. He has further deposed that, despite receiving treatment, Suniram died after about two months.

P.W.-6-Lakhan Marandi has deposed that about three years ago, during the month of Bhado, Suniram’s father called him to his house in the evening and spoke to him. He then asked Suniram about the matter and Suniram told him that Baburam was bringing a bullock cart and that a quarrel had broken out between them. Suniram did not tell him whether he had sustained any injuries. When he visited Suniram, he found his asleep. He did not know where Suniram had received medical treatment. Suniram passed away sometime thereafter. He did not die at home rather he likely died in a hospital. His body was subsequently buried in the village. Baburam was from his village and he knows him.

P.W.-7, Pandu Marandi has been declared hostile by the prosecution.

P.W.-8, Mithai Murmu has deposed that the incident took place about two and half years ago, on Thursday, during the month of Bhado. At that time, he was working in his field. At about 3:00 P.M., Jalpa came to the field to call him. Jalpa’s father’s name is Durga Marandi. Jalpa called him and took him to his house. Jalpa told him that he had quarrelled with Baburam. Jalpa and some other persons told him that Baburam was taking a bullock cart through Suniram’s field. Maize had been planted in that field. He died about two months after the incident about which the witness is deposing. This witness was told by people that Suniram had been assaulted on his stomach, as a result of which he died.

P.W.-9, A.S.I, Sripal Ram has stated that on 29.08.2003, he was posted as A.S.I. at Shikaripada Police Station. He recorded the fardbeyan of Suniram Marandi at Mohan Pahadi Hospital. The fardbeyan is in his handwriting and bears his signature. After recording it was read over and found to be correct, Suniram Marandi put his thumb impression in his presence. Durga Marandi also put his thumb impression which is marked as Exhibit-4. Sakaldev Ram was the Officer-in-Charge of Shikaripada Police Station. The endorsement on the fardbeyan and the formal F.I.R. are proved to be in his handwriting and bear his signature which is marked as Exhibit-4/1 and Exhibit-5, respectively. He has also proved the carbon copy of the inquest report in his handwriting and bears his signature along with the witness’s signature and thumb impression which is marked as Exhibit-6.

P.W.1, Dr. Michal Tuddu has examined Suniram Marandi on 29.08.2003 and found following injuries:-

There was distended abdomen. There was no any external injury. Plain X-ray abdomen done that shows intestinal perforation. Laparotomy was done and found multiple adhesion with infected abdominal fluid. Perforation not found because of infected and severe adhesion.

P.W.-10, Sita Ram Sah has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Suniram Marandi (deceased) and found following injuries:-

Abdomen- Linear ulcer about 3” x 1/4" in size situated in upper part of abdomen in midline up to 2” above the umbilicus with purulent and foul smelling discharge.

On dissection of the abdomen, there was perforation 1/2" x 1/4” in middle part of the ileum with faecopurulent discharge with foul-smell.

Opinion- Death was due to shock as a result of sepsis of the above mentioned injury No.1 following trauma.

Time elapsed since death- Within 24 hours.

Weapon used- Hard and blunt substance.

I have carefully considered the rival submissions and examined the evidence available on record. P.Ws.-2 and 4 are the material eyewitnesses and have consistently stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant regarding taking of the bullock cart through the maize field and, thereafter, the appellant assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his abdomen. Their evidence is substantially corroborated by the statement of the deceased recorded during his lifetime and proved by P.W.-9. P.W.-5 also found the deceased immediately after the occurrence holding his abdomen and disclosing that the appellant had assaulted him with lathi blows. The medical evidence further supports the prosecution case. P.W.-1 found serious abdominal injury and intestinal perforation, while P.W.-10, who conducted the post-mortem examination, found perforation of the ileum with faecopurulent discharge and opined that the death was caused due to shock and sepsis resulting from the traumatic injury. Thus, the medical evidence establishes a clear connection between the injury suffered by the deceased and his subsequent death. The occurrence appears to have taken place suddenly in the course of a quarrel. However, the appellant deliberately inflicted lathi blows on the abdomen, which is a vital part of the body. Therefore, knowledge that such assault was likely to cause death can reasonably be attributed to the appellant, attracting the provisions of Section 304 Part-II of the I.P.C.

Accordingly, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C.

In view of the above discussion and reasons, I do not find any legal substance in the point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and no merit in this appeal to take a different view and interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court. As such, conviction and sentence of the appellant passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby upheld and confirmed.

Consequently, this appeal is dismissed.

The appellant is on bail, his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the concerned Trial Court within two months from the date of this judgment to sustain the remaining period of sentence awarded to him, failing which, learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for arrest and detention of the appellant for serving the remaining period of sentence awarded to him.

Pending I.A(s), if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court Record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.