Parmanand Tiriya vs State of Jharkhand

Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. A.B. Mahato, learned APP for the State.

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 23rd April 2002 by Sri George William Baa, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 78 of 1998, whereby the sole Appellant has been found guilty for committing the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.

The prosecution case, in short, is that on 16/10/1997, the informant (the deceased) came out of his house in the night at about 11.00 p.m., for urinating and when he was sitting, the Appellant Parmanand Tiriya, in a drunken stage, came there and assaulted him by a knife (which is used to be tied with the leg of cock (Murga) in cock fighting), above the waist and on the left side of the chest. Due to such assault, the informant was badly injured and profuse blood came out. He raised hulla on which other persons assembled there. The informant narrated the story. The villagers tried to apprehend the Appellant but he fled away.

The Doctor found two penetrating wounds; 1 1/2" x 1/2 over right side of chest between 6th and 7th ribs, and over right side of lungs; and on dissection he found that the heart was punctured at two places and clotted blood was present in the cavity. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was heart injury.

It has come in the evidence that the deceased could not be treated at village and he was taken to the hospital after two days. After getting treatment there, he returned home after about four days and though he was not fully fit, he used to walk and generally he was sitting in his house and he died after about one week. The Appellant was in drunken stage at the time of the occurrence which was a festival time. The injuries caused by him, were from a small knife, used to be tied in the leg of the cock in cock fighting. It is true that there were two injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased but it is also true that he died after about one week and after he was treated in the hospital.

In the facts and circumstances of this case and taking into account the entire materials on record, it will not be safe to hold that the Appellant had intention to kill the deceased.

In the circumstances, we are inclined to convert the conviction u/s 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction passed by the trial court u/s 302 IPC against the Appellant is hereby set aside and the Appellant is held guilty for committing the offence u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the Appellant has remained in jail custody for about 14 years by now. He is sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period already undergone by him. The Appellant is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

With this alteration in conviction and modification in sentence, this appeal is partly allowed.