Gullu Sardar vs The State Of Jharkhand

We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned P.P. for the State.

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 24.07.2019 and 30.07.2019, respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan in Sessions Trial No. 200 of 2014 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence under sections 302 & 323 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- with default stipulation under Section 302 of the IPC and S.I. for six months along with a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation under Section 323 of the IPC.

The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that on 08.08.2014, at about 5:00pm, when the informant returned home after grazing the cows and bulls and was tying them, she heard hue and cry nearby and when she went there, she saw that Gullu Sardar was beating his father with an iron rod. It is also alleged that when the informant tried to save him, she was also assaulted by Gullu Sardar causing injury on her hand and she ran away due to fear. It is further alleged that it was a time of farming and villagers were in their field and she saw that Gullu Sardar was asking for Rs. 2000/-from his father and due to denial from his father, Gullu Sardar started assaulting his father with an iron rod due to which, deceased fell down and blood started oozing from his head and he died.

On the basis of above fardbeyan of Guruwari Sardar, Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 45 of 2014 was registered for the offence under Sections 323 and 302 of the IPC against the above named accused. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted for the aforesaid offence.

The case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where S.T. No. 200 of 2014 was registered. After conclusion of trial, impugned judgment and order was passed, which has been assailed in this appeal.

In the course of trial, altogether 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.

P.W.-1 Raibari @ Somwari, wife of the deceased.

P.W.-2 Mangal Sardar

P.W.-3 Guruwari Sardar (Informant)

P.W.-4 Garuwa Sardar

P.W.-5 Budhdeo Sardar

P.W.-6 Ajit Mahato

P.W.-7 Kanchan Gowala

P.W.-8 Mohan Gowala

P.W.-9 Jamadar Banra

P.W.-10 Dr. Umesh Rajak

P.W.-11 Dr. Khelaram Hembram

P.W.-12 Narsing Munda (A.S.I.)

Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary evidence has also been adduced by the prosecution: -

Ext.-1 Signature of Mangal Sardar (P.W.-2) on Seizure List

Ext.-2 Signature of Mangal Sardar (P.W.-2) on inquest report.

Ext.-2/1 Inquest report of deceased

Ext.-3 Fardbeyan with endorsement of informant

Ext.-4 Signature of officer-in-charge Ajay Prasad on formal F.I.R.

Ext.-5 Seizure List

Ext.-6 Post Mortem Report of the deceased

Ext.-7 Injury Report of Informant

Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that as per the prosecution case, the informant heard a sound of fight nearby and went there and saw that the present appellant demanded Rs. 2000/- form his father and due to denial of the same, the appellant in anger assaulted his father with an iron rod, as a result of which, his father died. It has further been contended that there is only one single blow with an iron rod which was not an intentional assault by the appellant and the occurrence took place in a sudden manner. Therefore, the offence does not come within the purview of Section 300 I.P.C. rather this case falls under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC. It has also been submitted that the appellant has also remained in custody for about 12 years, hence, sentence already undergone by appellant would meet the ends of justice.

On the other hand, learned P.P. appearing 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. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant does not suffer from illegality or infirmity, calling for any interference. There is no legal substance in the grounds raised on behalf of the appellant and it is a serious offence of murder committed by the appellant. Therefore, this appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.

We have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties.

The sole point for determination in this appeal is “as to whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant suffers from any error of law, which requires any interference in this appeal?”

It appears that out of 12 witnesses examined by prosecution, only P.W.-1 and P.W.-3 are eye witnesses of occurrence.

We have meticulously examined the evidence of witnesses as discussed above.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the evidence available on record, particularly, the testimony of eye witnesses namely P.W.-1 Raibari @ Somwari (wife of the deceased) and P.W.-3 Guruwari Sardar (Informant), who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is clear cut case of the prosecution that the present appellant was asking for Rs. 2000/- on the fateful day from his father (deceased) which he declined then at the spur of the moment, under anguish, the appellant has given one iron rod blow on head of his father which resulted in his death. The post-mortem report of the deceased, conducted by P.W.-10 Umesh Rajak, reveals that one lacerated wound on left side of the head with bleeding size 3” x 2” x bone deep causing fracture of left occipital and temporal bone of left head was found and the cause of death is also opined to be caused by hard blunt object like iron rod of 3 ft. long. The cause of death is opined to be brain hemorrhage and shock due to above mentioned injury.

We further find that there was no pre-meditation on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his own father but at the spur of the moment, he used an iron rod to cause injury to his father which he never intended to cause murder. The injury inflicted by the appellant is also not opined to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, we do not find that the ingredients of offence of murder as defined under Section 300 of the IPC corresponding to Section 101 of B.N.S., 2023 has been proved by the prosecution, rather, the ingredients of culpable homicide as defined under Section 299 of the IPC corresponding to Section 100 of B.N.S., 2023 is proved in this case inasmuch as the appellant was intending to cause injury to his father but at the spur of the moment it was likely to cause death.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the firm view that it is a fit case to modify/convert the conviction of the appellant from the offence under Section 302 of the IPC to Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.

Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304 (Part-II) of the IPC.

We further find that appellant has already undergone around 12 years of imprisonment and, therefore, the appellant has sufficiently been punished for the offence committed by him. Accordingly, the appellant is sentenced for the period of imprisonment already undergone by him.

In result, this appeal is partly allowed as stated above.

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.

Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned for information and needful.

The Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi is directed to extend the stipulated fees to the learned counsel-Mrs. Leena Mukharjee within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this order is served upon the Member Secretary, JHALSA, Ranchi.