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

2019 Supreme(Jhk) 1631

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Aparesh Kumar Singh, Kailash Prasad Deo, JJ.
Dhan Marandi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2015 (Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2014 passed by Sri Om Prakash Srivastava, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2012.)
Decided On : 22-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Alpana Verma, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Azeemuddin, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Respondent

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C was proved beyond all reasonable doubts, and the incident did not meet the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of the I.P.C - 302 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defense, and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzed the evidence of the witnesses, the medical evidence, and the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C. The court found that the incident did not meet the requirements of Exception 4 and concluded that the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C was proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C for assaulting and causing the death of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on the evidence of witnesses and medical reports. The defense argued that the evidence raised doubt about the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence and attempted to bring the case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C.

Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the I.P.C, finding that the charge was proved beyond all reasonable doubts. The court analyzed the evidence, including the witness testimonies and medical reports, and concluded that the incident did not meet the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C.

Issues: The issues revolved around the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence, the applicability of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C, and the sufficiency of evidence to prove the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies and medical reports, established the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C beyond all reasonable doubts. The court also concluded that the incident did not meet the requirements of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the I.P.C.

Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dismissing the appeal for being devoid of merit.

JUDGMENT

1. By Court: Heard learned counsel Mrs. Alpana Verma, appointed by JHALSA to represent the appellant who has preferred this criminal appeal from jail and Mr. Azeemuddin, learned Additional Public Prosecutor representing the State.

2. Under appeal is the judgment of conviction dated 16.12.2014 and order of sentence dated 17.12.2014 rendered in Sessions Case No. 84 of 2012 by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pakur where under the sole accused/appellant herein has been convicted for the charge under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default whereof, to further suffer R.I. for 2 years. The learned Sessions Court has directed the fine amount to be paid to the widow mother of the deceased, by way of compensation under Section 357 of the Cr.P.C.

3. The case of the prosecution was launched on the fardbeyan of the mother of the deceased Rosomuni namely Mangli Tudu, examined as P.W.8. Her fardbeyan was recorded on 06.01.2012 at Sadar Hospital, Pakur Female Ward by A.S.I Thakur Das Marandi, Pakur Police Station at 4.00 P.M. where under it was alleged that when the informant Mangli Tudu reached her home at Manglapara from village Talsha, she saw her daughter Rosomuni (deceased) lying, profusely bleeding due to serious injury on her head. Her daughter was immediately taken to Sadar Hospital and thereafter to Sadar Hospital Sonajori where she was given treatment in an unconscious state. She further alleges that she came to know that her son-in-law Dhan Marandi (appellant) son of late Mangal Marandi, resident of village Ranikola, P.S. Hiranpur District Pakur, who had been living at village Mangalpara, P.S. Pakur Town since few months in her house, has assaulted her daughter after an altercation on the demand of food from her and some delay in giving it. The accused picked up the Kudal (spade) and assaulted the victim Rosomuni, informants daughter on her head which resulted in injuries and she fell down. On these allegations, informant asserted that her son-in-law Dhan Marandi has, with an intention to kill, assaulted her daughter on the head with a Kudal (spade) and rendered her injured.

4. Pakur P.S. Case No. 10 of 2012 was registered on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant on 06.01.2012 at 17.30 Hrs. under Section 341,323,324,307, 504 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused /appellant, to which the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C was added on 12.01.2012 after the victim died. Since the case was found to be true, charge-sheet was submitted against the sole accused Dhan Marandi on 31.01.2012 bearing no. 8 of 2012 under Section 341, 323, 324,307, 504 and 302 of the I.P.C. Cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned Magistrate and since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, it was committed to the said Court. The charge was thereafter framed against the sole accused under Section 302 of the I.P.C vide order dated 14.09.2012, which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, the trial commenced.

5. In order to prove the case, prosecution has examined altogether 10 prosecution witnesses and also adduced certain documentary evidence up to Ext. 4 as under:

P.W.1 Lakhiram Murmu

P.W.2 Paltan Tudu

P.W.3 Premlata Murmu

P.W.4 Balram Tudu

P.W.5 Pero Murmu

P.W.6 Paika Murmu

P.W.7 Sanatan Hansda

P.W.8 Mangli Tudu

P.W.9 Thakur Das Marandi

P.W.10 Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha

Documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution are as under:

1. Ext.1- writing and signature of Thakur Das Marandi (P.W.9) on fardbeyan proved by P.W.9.

2. Ext.2 - writing and signature of the then Officer -In- Charge Arbind Prasad yadav on forwarding on fardbeyan, which has been proved by Thakur Das Marandi (P.W.9).

3. Ext.3 - signature of the then Officer-In-Charge Arbind Prasad Yadav on the formal F.I.R and writing of Bipat Das, Literate Constable on formal F.I.R proved by Thakur Das Marandi (P.W.9)

4. Ext

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