Dilaram Manjhi vs State of Chhattisgarh

L.C. Bhadoo, J.—The accused/appellant Dilaram Manjhi has preferred this appeal u/s 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code through the Superintendent of Jail, Bilaspur being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21-6-2001 passed by the third Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh by which learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

The relevant prosecution story for the disposal of this criminal appeal is that on 31st July, 2000 at about 7 p.m. in the evening in the Village Nawadih Kudumkela the accused/appellant by causing the injury by means of lathi on the head caused murder of Jigni Bai. At that time her husband Rantaram and son Amal Singh were not at the residence as they had gone for working in agricultural field. When in the evening the husband and son of Jigni Bai returned from their work they saw the injury on forehead of Jigni Bai and enquired about the injury. Jigni Bai informed them that accused Dilaram has caused that injury. Jigni Bai was conscious during the night, she could not be taken for treatment on the date of occurrence and when the next day she was being taken for treatment to Raigarh, she succumbed to the injury. The husband of the deceased convened a panchayat in the village in which on enquiry by the Sarpanch, the accused/appellant made extra-judicial confession before the panchayat that because Jigni Bai abused him that is why he assaulted her by lathi on her head, Amal Singh, son of the deceased reported the matter to the S.H.O. Rashmi Kant Mishr, who entered the merg intimation (Ex. P-1) on 2-8-2000, and based on this merg intimation offence was registered vide Crime No. 92/2000. Vide Ex. P-2, Panchayatnama of the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-6, the post-mortem of the body of the deceased was got conducted in Primary Health Centre, Gharghora by Dr. S.N. Kesri (P.W. 8) who prepared the post-mortem report (Ex. P-19). Based on the memorandum given by the accused, the lathi was recovered; sample soil, blood smeared soil and clothes of the deceased were taken into possession, site map of the place of occurrence was prepared, and after completion of the investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant.

The charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the accused/appellant who in turn after hearing the charge denied the same and asked for trial.

The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused/ appellant examined 8 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of the Cr.PC in which either he said does not know or he denied the statements of the prosecution witnesses and said that he is innocent. After hearing learned Public Prosecutor and the Counsel for the accused/appellant learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment.

We have heard Shri Akhil Agarwal, Advocate representing the appellant and Miss Sharmila Singhai, Deputy Govt. Advocate representing the State and have perused the evidence available on record as also the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court.

As far as the question of homicidal nature of death of the deceased Jigni Bai is concerned, learned Counsel for the accused/appellant has not disputed this fact. Even otherwise Dr. S.N. Kesri (P.W. 8) who conducted the post-mortem on the dead- body has stated that on 3-8-2000 at about 11.30 a.m. he conducted post-mortem on the body of Jigni Bai and on examination he found in all four injuries, i.e., (i) Lacerated wound on the forehead 3 x 5 cm., clotted blood was present at the place of injury, (ii) Lacerated wound 2 x 5 cm., on the outer side of the injury No. (i), (iii) Lacerated wound 1 x 5 cm., on the right side of lower lip, (iv) There was clotted blood on the left side of the skull. These injuries were ante-mortem, caused by hard and blunt object and cause of death was due to excessive bleeding and shock, and the death was homicidal in nature. In view of this statement of the doctor it is established that the nature of death was homicidal.

Now coming to the point as to whether the accused/appellant is responsible for causing death of the deceased Jigni Bai, learned Counsel for the appellant did not argue much on this point. Even otherwise, Amal Singh (P. W. 1) who is son of the deceased has stated that he and his father were out of their house as they had gone for work, when he returned, he saw injury on the forehead of his mother and the blood was oozing, on enquiry his mother told that accused Dilaram caused the injury. On the next day his mother expired. The panchayat was convened in which Sarpanch Chatur Singh was present, accused/appellant came in the meeting of Panchayat and informed that deceased Jigni Bai was abusing him that is why he gave a lathi blow. He reported the matter at the police station, Ex. P-1 is merg intimation and FIR (Ex. P-2) was registered, panchnama of the dead-body was prepared and the site map (Ex. P-3) was also prepared in his presence. Rantaram (P.W. 2) who is husband of the deceased has also supported the statement of Amal Singh. He deposed that panchnama was prepared, he had gone for digging mud, and deceased Jigni Bai was at residence, when he returned then he saw that there was an injury on the the head of his wife and on enquiry she informed that accused Dilaram has assaulted by lathi. He took her to the hospital and on the second day when they were preparing to take her to Raigarh she succumbed to the injuries. On the next day a panchayat was convened and before panchayat the accused/appellant admitted that he assaulted by lathi on the head of deceased, and the police report was lodged by his son. Ganesh Ram (P.W. 3) has also supported the statement of this witness and said that the panchayat was convened in that panchayat the accused/appellant admitted that he assaulted with lathi on the head of the deceased.

In view of the above statements it is proved that the accused/appellant made extra-judicial confession before the panchayat that he gave a lathi blow to the deceased Jigni Bai and deceased Jigni Bai also made dying declaration before her husband and son about causing of injury by Dilaram. There is no reason to disbelieve the statements of the prosecution witness, therefore it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant assaulted Jigni Bai by lathi on account of which she succumbed to the injuries as stated by Dr. S.N. Kesri (P.W. 8).

Learned Counsel for the accused appellant argued that there was no enmity between the accused and the deceased, rather the accused is younger brother of the husband of deceased and the accused assaulted the deceased on a spur of moment because the deceased Jigni Bai abused him, the injury was caused by a lathi which is not a deadly weapon and because the accused and the deceased are closely related, therefore, there was no intention for the accused to murder the deceased and the offence does not travel beyond Section 304, Part-II, IPC and the offence is not made out u/s 302 of IPC.

In order to appreciate the argument of learned Counsel for the accused/appellant if we look at the statements of Amal Singh (P.W. 1) and Ranta Ram (P.W. 2) who are son and husband of the deceased respectively, they have stated that the accused/appellant admitted before the panchayat that he assaulted lathi blow on the deceased because the deceased was abusing the accused and that is why he assaulted. It is admitted that the accused and the deceased are closely related because the accused is younger brother of husband of the deceased, there was no enmity between the two and the accused caused injury at a spur of moment on account of the fact that the deceased abused him and the injury was caused by lathi which is not a deadly weapon, therefore, in the given circumstances, looking to the weapon of offence used by accused as well as the relations of the deceased and the accused it can not be inferred from the above evidence that the accused had any intention to murder the deceased. Neither it can be inferred that the accused caused the injury with the intention to murder or with the intention to cause such injury which is likely to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Therefore, the offence u/s 302 of the IPC is not proved and not made out against the accused/appellant. However, from the above evidence it can safely be inferred that, while causing the injury on the vital part by lathi the accused had knowledge that this injury may cause death of the deceased, as such the knowledge can be attributed to the accused that he had the knowledge that by such injury the death may be caused. As such the offence u/s 304, Part-II is made out.

Looking to the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that if the sentence of five years is awarded to the accused/appellant Dilaram that would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction u/s 302 of the IPC and imprisonment for life is set aside. However, the conviction is converted to Section 304, Part-II of the IPC and the accused is sentenced to suffer five years rigorous imprisonment for the same.