Ratanlal Tamsoy vs State Of Jharkhand

Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J

Appellants are before this Court in appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the IPC.

Out of the four appellants, Tumpu Tamsoy died during the pendency of the appeal and a report regarding it has been received from Officer-in-Charge, Manjhari P.S., Chaibasa. In view of the death of the appellant, appeal preferred by him stands abated.

Informant of the case is the wife of deceased. As per the FIR, on 04.05.2000, in the evening at about 4 O’clock, her husband Pustam Tamsoy had gone to purchase grocery from Rankui Bazar, but did not return thereafter. On the next morning, Kishan Tamsoy, who was her co-villager, informed that while returning from the market he had seen that these appellants were assaulting the deceased on the road near Doglakocha jungle. After getting this information, she went to meet the appellants, but they were not present at their home. His dead body was found in the drain near the Jungle with marks of injury over his head and blood-stained marks were also seen on the road.

On the basis of fardbeyan, Manjhari P.S. Case No.9/2000 was registered under Sections 302, 201/34 of the IPC. Police on investigation found the case true and submitted charge sheet against the appellants, who were put on trial under these Sections.

Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that the same is based on the solitary account of P.W. 2- Kishan Tamsoy, who has claimed himself to be the eye witness of the incidence. His testimony does not appear to be natural as there was material contradiction in his statement. Further, he was on inimical term with the appellants on account of land dispute. P.W. 2 has also deposed that there was land dispute between appellants and the deceased. He claims to be the eye witness to the assault, but he neither intervened nor informed the wife of the deceased after returning to the village on the same evening.

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Deceased died a homicidal death is amply borne out by the Post Mortem Examination Report, in which the following ante mortem injuries were found: -

I. Lacerated wound over occipital part of head 2”x ¼” x ¼”.

II. Lacerated wound over face and right side extending to right parietal region 4”x ¼" x ½”.

III. Bruise over chest at sternum and extended to both sides.

I. Fracture of right parietal bone.

II.   Fracture of lower part of sternum.

III.   Fracture of rib on right side 3rd, 4th and 5th.

IV.   Fracture of rib on left side 4th and 5th.

Doctor opined that the death was caused by above injuries over his head and chest which were caused by hard and blunt substance.

As per FIR, the only witness to the incidence is P.W. 2- Kishan Tamsoy. He has stated that while he was returning from Rankui Bazar, he saw Pustam Tamsoy being assaulted by the appellants near Doglakocha Jungle. He also identified all the four accused persons in dock. It has also been deposed by him that they assaulted him with a piece of stone. Nothing specific has come in his cross-examination to discredit the veracity of his account. The homicidal death of the deceased is established by the post-mortem examination report proved by the Doctor (P.W. 4). This witness (P.W. 2) is an unlettered, rustic tribal man and nothing significant has come in cross-examination to disbelieve his account. Defence has failed to impeach his credit. It has come in the testimony of P.W. 2 that there was previous land dispute for which the deceased was assaulted in a pre-planned manner by the appellants resulting in his death. The extensive nature of injury sustained by the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, discloses the intention of the appellants to cause the death of the deceased.

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of conviction and sentence.

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.