SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2009 Supreme(Jhk) 451

Pradeep Kumar, J.
Lal Chhabindra Nath Shahdeo & Ors.... Appellants
verses.
The State of Jharkhand. ... Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 422 of 2001
Decided on : 26.3.2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s Anil Kumar Kashyap, Ravi Prakash.
For the Respondent: Mr. Awani Kant Prasad.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 147, 304 and 149—Culpable homicide not amounting to murder—Cause of incident catching of fish and polluting of water—Medical evidence and evidence of PWs found supporting case of prosecution—Conviction affirmed and sentence modified—Appeal dismissed.

By Court.-

Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and counsel for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 5th September, 2001, passed by Shri R.N. Verma, Addl. Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-I, C.B.I. (A.H.D.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 336 of 1987 by which judgment the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-I, C.B.1. (A.H.D.), Ranchi found guilty all the appellants under Sections 147, 304 (1) 1st part and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant no. 4 Mohan Singh @ Lal Mohan Nath Shahdeo has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code and other appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code and further all the appellants sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. However, Trial Court offered all both the sentences will run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case was started on the basis of fardbeyan given by the injured deceased Lal Narain Nath Shahdeo on 12.4.1986 at 12:30 in the afternoon stating therein that on the same day at

11 :00 A.M. when he was going to Bero Bazar, he saw that in his raiyati tank in the village accused Lal Chhabindra Nath Shahdeo, Lal Meghu Nath Shahdeo, Narain Singh are catching fish and are also polluting the water, so that the same cannot remain good for drinking for animals. As such he went to the tank and asked them not to do so, whereupon Lal Chhabindra Nath Shahdeo with lathi, Lal Meghu Nath Shadeo and Narain Singh with lathi started assaulting him and at that time east south of the tank from bagicha, Lal Agan Nath Shahdeo, Lal Banshi Nath Shahdeo both son of Bhuvneshwar Nath Shahdeo. Lal Mohan Nath Shahdeo son of late Charka Nath Shahdeo also started pelting stone upon him. Hearing hulla, his brother Tirath Nath Shahdeo came there but he was assaulted by stones that the accused persons caused injury whereupon accused Mohan Singh gave Barcha blows on his arm causing injury on his left arm. On the basis of said fardbeyan police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 323, 324, 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently after 23 days the informant Lal Narain Shahdeo died at R.M.C.H. So Section 302 was added and finally after investigation police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 147, 149, 323, 324, 307, 379, 302 of the Indian Penal Code against all the seven accused persons.

4. The learned Judicial Magistrate after taking cognizance of the case committed the case to the court of sessions and the case was tried by Shri R.N. Verma, Additional Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge-I, C.B.1: (A.H.D.), Ranchi. After framing of the charge one accused Sanjay Kumar absconded and his case was split up on 1.5.2000 and rest of the six accused persons were tried and after examination of the witnesses they were convicted.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that altogether prosecution examined eight witnesses. During the trial none of the witnesses have proved that the accused persons caused any injury to the deceased with intention to commit his murder. The injured had received simple injuries on his person but subsequently during treatment at R.M.C.H. he died. The doctor has opined that the informant developed bed sore arid he might have died due to same and as such conviction of the appellants under Sections 304/149 of the Indian Penal Code part-1 is bad in law. Learned Counsel has further submitted that during trial neither the informant fardbeyan was proved nor F.I.R. was proved, nor I.O. was examined. In that view of the matter and as the first version of the case before the court has not been proved and as such the case has become doubtful and as such conviction is bad in law.

6. On the other hand learned counsel for the prosecution has submitted that the evidences of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 4 as also the evidences of the doctor who conducted
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top