Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
A.M. Badar and Sunil Kumar Panwar, JJ.
Sambal Ram – Appellant
versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.271 of 1995
Decided on 30.11.2021
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300 – Murder – Mere fact that death of human being is caused is not enough to constitute offence of murder – Unless one of mental status mentioned in ingredient of Section 300 is present, act causing death cannot amount to culpable homicide amounting to murder – It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict particular bodily injury actually found to be present – Intention of person causing injury has to gathered from careful examination of facts and circumstances of each case – Intention to cause requisite type of injury is a subjective inquiry and then there would be further inquiry whether injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death is of objective nature – Each and every circumstance reflecting from record is required to be taken into account while drawing conclusion as to whether act of accused amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder or offence of any other nature – Murder is a gravest form of culpable homicide, which has its peculiar characteristic required to be proved before a person is to be held guilty for committing murder as defined under Section 300 of I.P.C. – It requires judicial scrutiny of prevailing facts.(Paras 11 and 12)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Being a related witness does not mean that such a witness is an interested witness – Witness is mean only when he derives some benefit as a result of litigation – Deceased died because of head injuries suffered by him – Even if it is assumed that deceased was pushed with great force on hard and blunt surface as suggested by defence then also death is certainly homicidal and not accidental – Prosecution has established that it was appellant/accused who had inflicted blows of butt of Rifle on head of deceased – Deceased had suffered two lacerated wounds on left parietal as well as temporal bones – Without any provocation by deceased, accused was giving blows of butt on head of deceased with great force – Defence has not brought on record any circumstances to suggest that accused was deprived of power of self-control because of grave and sudden provocation given by deceased – It is not brought on record that there was sudden fight between appellant/accused and deceased, during which, without premeditation, blows of butt of Rifle were given – Prosecution has established that accused had committed murder of deceased – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 6, 7, 12 and 15)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT (CAV)
A.M. Badar, J.—By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging the Judgment and order dated 01.08.1995 and 04.08.1995 respectively, passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Rohtas, Sasaram, in Sessions Trial No. 154 of 1991 between the parties, thereby convicting him of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life. For the sake of conveyance, the appellant/accused shall be referred to in his original capacity as an accused.
2. The facts in brief leading to the prosecution case projected from the police report can be summarized thus:
A. Parmanand Paswan (since deceased) was resident village Amouna, P.S. Karakat (Kachhuwan), District Rohtas, Sasaram. P.W.4 Bucha Paswan is the first informant, who lodged the First Information Report regarding murder of his father Parmanand Paswan on 11.12.1990 at Karakat (Kachhwan) Police Station and the same was recorded by P.W. 7 Shashi Bhushan, the Investigating Officer of Karakat (Kachhwan) Police Station, which has resulted in registration of Crime No. 110 of 1990 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against accused, Sambal Ram. P.W. 5, Budhan Paswan is brother of deceased Parmanand Paswan. These two witnesses are claiming to be an eye witnesses to the incident of murder of Parmanand Paswan by the appellant/accused.
B. It is case of prosecution that accused Sambal Ram is also resident of village Amouna. On 11.12.1990, at about 11 P.M., food was being cooked at the house of Parmanand Paswan (since deceased). His son P.W 4 Bucha Paswan was also present at the house. He heard loud cry of Parmanand Paswan for help. Parmanand Paswan was shouting that accused Sambal Ram is killing him. P.W.4 Bucha Paswan along with his brother Badshah Paswan rushed for help and saw that accused Sambal Paswan was assaulting their father Parmanand Paswan by means of butt of rifle. This incident was taking place in front of house of P.W.3 Lal Muni Mahto. When P.W.4 Bucha Paswan and his brother Badshah Paswan attempted to intervene for saving Parmanand Paswan, the appellant/accused pointed a rifle at them. In the meanwhile, other resident of the village such as P.W.5 Budhan Paswan, P.W. 2 Krishna Sao, Mahendra Shah etc. arrived at the spot. The appellant/accused ran away from the spot. Injured Parmanand was then taken to the clinic of Dr. Bhola Singh, where he died during course of his medical treatment. That is how, P.W.4 Bucha Paswan went to Police Station Karakat (Kachhwan) and lodged FIR with P.W.7 Shashi Bhushan.
C. During course of investigation, the dead body of Parmanand Paswan was sent for autopsy to Sadar Hospital Hospital, Sasaram. P.W.6 Dr. Kumar Chitranjan Singh conducted the postmortem examination. The spot was inspected and blood as well traces of vomiting came to be seized. Statement of witnesses were examined and on completion of investigating, the accused came to be charge sheeted.
D. The charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed and explained to the appellant/accused, who adjured the guilt and claimed trial.
E. In support of prosecution case, in all seven witnesses came to be examined. Defence of the accused was that of total denial. It is contended by the defence that the deceased was under intoxication and had suffered a fall leading to his death.
F. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court was pleased to convict the appellant/accused and to sentence him as indicated in the opening para of the Judgment.
3. We heard Ms. Surya Nilambari, the learned Amicus Curiae appointed by this Court vide order dated 30.07.2019. She argued that evidence of P.W.4 Bucha Paswan is not consistent with that of P.W.5 Budhan Paswan, though they both are claiming to be eye witnesses of the incident. She further argued that in all probability, P.W. 4 Bucha Paswan had not seen the incident as house of P.W.3 Lal Muni Mahto is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
