SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI & MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.
Badal Murmu & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1502 of 2004
Decided On : 05-02-2014
(b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II – Stealing and killing of a hen – Penalty imposed by Salishman paid and issue settled – Appellants not satisfied with quantum of punishment beating the deceased with lathis – Appellants convicted under section 302 r/w 149 – Appellants not using tangies despite being armed with – No common intention to kill the deceased – Post mortem report also not identifying which was the fatal blow – Witnesses not ascribing individual roles to appellants – Conviction altered from one under section 302 to section 304 Part II. (Para 7, 8 and 10)
AIR 1992 SC 755; 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 356 – Relied upon
1994 Supp. (2) SCC 569; AIR 1976 SC 2499 – Relied upon impliedly
(2006) 9 SCC 394; (2012) 2 SCC 648; AIR 1997 SC 393 – Distinguished impliedly
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304 Part II – Sentence – Socio-economic conditions of the appellants and their tribal background – Relevant factors for deciding sentence – Sentence reduced to period already undergone. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
Eleven appellants were convicted for offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The incident started with killing of a hen of one of the appellants which ultimately resulted in killing of the deceased.
Their appeal was dismissed by High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Appellants deserve conviction u/s 304 Part II and not 302 IPC.
Result: Conviction converted to section 304 Part II and sentence reduced to the period already undergone. Appeal disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
Mrs. Ranjana Prakash Desai, J.
1. There are eleven appellants. All of them were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Burdwan for offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC. They were convicted for offences punishable under Section 148 and Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for causing death of one Jhore Soren (“deceased-Jhore Soren”). The appellants’ appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.
2. The prosecution story could be shortly stated:
The appellants and the prosecution witnesses belong to Santhal Community of village Mobarakpur. In March, 1989, deceased-Jhore Soren killed the hen of one Bhagbat. This created a furore in Santhal community. A Salish was called and the deceased was asked to give one hen and two handies of country liquor to Bhagbat as a penalty by the Salishman. Deceased-Jhore Soren complied with Salishman’s order. On 14/4/1989, when deceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were discussing the same incident, appellant-Bhagbat overheard it and showed his displeasure to PW-7 Kanka. When PW7 Kanka protested, the appellants Bhagbat, Ragai and Sambhu caused bleeding injuries to him. PW-7 Kanka went to a doctor and got himself examined. On the next day, in the morning, deceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka were called to the courtyard of one Saheb Hasda on the pretext that a meeting was to be held over the previous day’s incident. When deceased-Jhore Soren and PW-7 Kanka came to the courtyard of Saheb Hasda, they were tied with a rope against one bamboo pole and one Kul tree respectively by the appellants. The appellants were armed with lathis, tangies (sharp cutting weapons) etc. They started assaulting deceased-Jhore Soren and PW- 7 Kanka with lathis. PW-7 Kanka managed to escape. The appellants continued to beat deceased Jhore Soren. He was beaten to death. Two wives of deceased-Jhore Soren, who had followed him to the courtyard of Saheb Hasda, saw the incident. The women who had assembled there also assaulted the wives, mother and sister of deceased-Jhore Soren. PW-1 Nilmoni, the first wife of deceased-Jhore Soren rushed to Memari Police Station and gave her statement. In her statement, she named all the appellants as persons, who assaulted her husband – deceased-Jhore Soren with lathis. On the basis of her statement, investigation was started and upon completion of the investigation, the appellants came to be charged as aforesaid.
3. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses. The accused denied the prosecution case. Prosecution case found favour with the trial court which convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforesaid. Their conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.
4. Ms. Makhija, learned amicus, who on our request is appearing for the appellants, submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the appellants deserve to be acquitted. She submitted that, in any case, if this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellants are guilty, then it should hold them guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder because there was no intention to kill the deceased. Counsel submitted that the appellants have admittedly used lathis and, therefore, Section 304 Part II of the IPC is clearly attracted to this case. In this connection, counsel relied on Kirti Mahto & Ors. v. State of Bihar [1994 Supp. (2) SCC 569]. Counsel submitted that the injuries are not on the vital part of the deceased’s body. They are superficial in nature. This also indicates that there was no intention to kill the deceased. In this connection, counsel relied on Molu & Ors. v. State of Haryana [AIR 1976 SC 2499]. Counsel submitted that the appellants are poor tribals; they are in jail for a considerably long time and, hence, they may be sentenced to the period already undergone by resorting to Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.