Ram Kumar Sharma vs State Of Jharkhand

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the informant, at length.

This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2003 and the order of sentence dated 10.04.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.5, Dhanbad convicted the appellants under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan is that a room in the house of the informant was kept locked. The informant claimed that the room belongs to him. On the fateful day these appellants broke open the lock and were keeping their belongings in the said room, which was objected by the informant. The son of the informant also objected and a verbal altercation took place between them. It is alleged that the appellants claimed that room belongs to them, thus they are keeping their belongings there. The verbal altercation transformed into a fight resulting in assault by these appellants upon the deceased (son of the informant) by fists and slaps. He was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. On the aforesaid basis, FIR being Chirkunda PS Case No. 222 of 2000 was instituted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellants and the appellants were put on trial.

On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to Court of Sessions where charge was framed under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.

To prove the prosecution case, altogether 7 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are as under:-

i. PW1 :-  Ajay Kumar

ii. PW2 :-  Gautam Kumar

iii. PW3 :-  Jitesh Kumar

iv. PW4 :-  Laxmi Devi

v. PW5 :-  Sushila Devi

vi.PW6:- Sudama Ram

vii.PW7:- Dr. Shailendra Kumar

Following documents have been exhibited :

i. Ext.1 – Signature of Sudama Ram on the Fardbeyan

ii. Ext. 2– Identity card of Sanjoy Kumar Ram

iii. Ext.3–Post Mortem Report

iv. Ext.4 – Signature of Gautam Kumar on the carbon copy of inquest report.

v. Mark ‘X’ for identification – Signature of Gautam Kumar on the photo copy of inquest report.

PW7 is the doctor. The doctor opined that he has found nine injuries on the dead body of the deceased:

Abrasion:

(i) 1 ½” x 1” on top of head.

(ii) 1” x ¼” on right side of forehead.

(iii) 1” x ¼” on right zygomatic arch

(iv) ½” x ¼” over right Zygoma

(v) ¼” x ¼” over left Zygoma

(vi) ½” x ¼” on the top of right shoulder

(vii) 1 ½” x ½” on dorsam of right hand

(viii) 5” x 2 ½” on right side of abdomen

(iv) Multiple abrasion, all over the left buttock.

On dissection : Subdural hematoma was found defused all over surface of brain on both side. Lungs were contused on both sides. Liver had a tear on exterior surface. Heart was empty. Abdominal cavity contain blood and clots. Stomach contain about 100 c.c. of brownish fluid with no particular smell, bladder was partially filled with urine. All internal organs were congested.

He opined that the cause of death is due to hard blunt force injuries of internal vital organs that is brain, lungs and liver. As per the doctor all the external injuries were simple in nature. He stated that the death was due to combined effect of injuries on the three organs. The postmortem report was marked as Ext.3.

From the postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor, we find that the death is homicidal in nature.

PW6 is the informant. He stated that on 01.12.2000 these appellants after breaking open the lock of the room were keeping their own belongings which was objected by the informant. His son also objected, then these appellants assaulted his son with fists and slaps. As a result of which he became unconscious. In paragraph no. 6 he stated that the said room was not locked.

PW1 in paragraph no. 2 had stated that he was informed about the incident from his father and other family members which would suggests that he is not an eye witness to the said occurrence.

PW2 also in his examination-in-chief stated in the similar manner as stated by the informant. He stated that he had seen these appellants assaulting the deceased with fists and slaps. He further stated that the lock of the room was broke open by these appellants and they were keeping their materials.

From the evidence laid by the prosecution, we find that the dispute arose in respect of possession of the room in question.

The appellants were keeping their articles in the said room when it was objected by the informant and his son, thereafter, these appellants assaulted the deceased with fists and slaps. The informant in in his FIR and in examination-in-chief had stated that the lock of the room was broken by these appellants but in his cross examination he states that the room was not kept locked. PW1 and others also stated that the lock of the room was broken by these appellants. Whether the room was kept locked or not, is not of much relevance. The fact remains that there was dispute in respect of possession of the room and there was verbal altercation when these appellants were keeping their materials in the said room. The verbal altercation between the informant and these appellants transformed into a fight which the appellants perpetrated upon the deceased by fists and slaps. It is an admitted case and evident from the statement of the witnesses, that the appellants were not armed with any weapon far less deadly weapon. In spur of the moment, the entire incident had occurred. The doctor also found the external injuries are simple in nature. This facts suggests that this case will fall under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

Considering the aforesaid fact, we convert conviction of these appellants from Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

So far as the sentence is concerned, the instant case is of the year 2000 and these appellants are nearly of 50 years as on date and they have already remained in custody for about 4 years.

Thus, so far as the sentence is concerned, it would be suffice if it is reduced to the period which they have already undergone.

Thus, this appeal stands dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the judgment of conviction dated 08.04.2003 and the order of sentence dated 10.04.2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 225 of 2001, as indicated above.

The appellants are on bail. They are discharged of the liabilities of the bail bonds, so are the bailors.

Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.