Degra Murmu vs The State Of Jharkhand

I have already heard the arguments of Mr. Aniket Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Bishwambhar Shastri, learned A.P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 17.03.2009 and 20.03.2009 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 224 of 2007, 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 seven years.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of the informant, Basu Murmu, son of Late Mati Murmu is that on 07.03.2007 (Wednesday), he and his wife, carrying bundles of straw, were proceeding towards their house from the field. His wife was walking ahead of him, whereas he was following behind her. When his wife (deceased) reached near the field of one Prabhat Murmu, situated just adjacent to the informant's house, where arhar pulse had been grown, he saw his younger brother, Degra Murmu, who was in intoxicated condition, assaulted his wife with chhemni. As a result of assault, she cried out sharply. When the informant reached near her, he found that his brother, Degra Murmu after inflicting chhemni blow upon her, was fleeing from the spot. His wife was found moving her body restlessly and the informant noticed that her entire body was drenched in a pool of blood. The informant, on seeing such unexpected horrifying incident became momentarily bewildered and could not understand how such an occurrence had taken place. Thereafter, when he realized the actual situation, he found that his wife had succumbed to her injuries and breathed her last due to high bleeding. It further transpires from the fardbeyan of the informant that he and his assailant brother, Degra Murmu were residing in the same house but their mess and cultivation were separate. The informant also stated that there was no previous dispute or any cogent reason for any quarrel between him and his younger brother, who killed his wife by inflicting chhemni blow. The informant has also expressed that the killing of his wife by his assailant brother was under the influence of excessive intoxication, which prompted him to commit the said act.

On the basis of above fardbeyan, Borio (M) P.S. Case No. 25 of 2007 dated 08.03.2007 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the accused for the aforesaid offence. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where Sessions Case No. 224 of 2007 was registered. The accused denied from the charges leveled against him and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 8 witnesses were examined by prosecution:-

P.W.-8-Nagendra Kumar Mandal (Second I.O.)

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary evidence have been adduced by the 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.

The learned Trial Court after considering the evidence of prosecution arrived at definite conclusion about guilt of the present appellant for the offence charged against him and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence available on record in its proper perspective and has recorded the conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He has submitted that there is no eyewitness to the alleged occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is further argued that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies, which create serious doubt regarding the veracity of the prosecution case. Learned counsel has also submitted that although bloodstains were allegedly found during investigation, the same were never sent for chemical examination. It is further contended that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive for the commission of the alleged offence.

In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has remained in custody for about two years and three months out of seven years maximum imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court for the offence under Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further submits that the occurrence is of the year 2007 and since then, the appellant is suffering from the agony of the trial, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for his guilt, hence a lenient view may be taken to meet the ends of justice in this case.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that the learned Trial Court has very wisely and aptly appreciated and analyzed the evidence available on record and rightly convicted the appellant. Learned A.P.P. is also fair enough to state that the appellant has remained in custody for about two years and three months and have no objection if the Court takes a lenient view in the matter of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court.

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

Upon careful consideration of the impugned judgment and the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, I find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, Degra Murmu caused the homicidal death of the deceased. P.W.-5 informant, P.W.-3 David Hembrom and P.W.-4, Deepak Hembrom have proved the assault given by the accused to the deceased which also finds corroboration from the post mortem report of deceased, which was conducted by P.W.-2, Dr. Bhagwat Marandi, therefore, evidence of the prosecution witnesses is consistent, cogent and duly corroborated by the medical evidence. The circumstances further reveal that the occurrence was not premeditated or intentional. The appellant, being suddenly provoked when the deceased accidentally got entangled in the rabbit-trapping net, inflicted a single blow with a chhemni, resulting in her death. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court after considering the overall aspects of the case has rightly held the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 304 part-II of the I.P.C., which requires no interference in this appeal.

So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, it appears that the appellant has already undergone two years and three months custody during investigation, trial and post-conviction. The occurrence is of the year 2007 and since then, almost two decades have elapsed and the appellant has suffered long agony of the trial. It has also come on record that there is no other criminal background of the appellant and he has maintained his life in mainstream without indulging in any other criminal activities. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by sending the appellant again in jail for sustaining the rest of the imprisonment. Hence, it appears expedient, for the ends of justice to modify/alter the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone by him.

Accordingly, the sentence of the appellant is modified to the extent of period already undergone by him.

In result, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence as stated above.

Appellant is on bail, as such he is discharged from the liability of bail bond and sureties are also discharged.

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.