Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Chota Dugo Hembram, son of Bulay Hembrom - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 481 of 2011 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 446 of 2011 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 482 of 2011
Decided on : 11-02-2021
Murder - Common Intention - Indian Penal Code section 302/34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Bajal Murmu by multiple accused in furtherance of common intention. The prosecution presented evidence of the assault and the death of the victim, supported by eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had indeed assaulted the victim, leading to his death, and that the murder was committed in furtherance of common intention. However, the court also analyzed the individual roles and intentions of the accused, leading to different conclusions for each accused.
Issues: The key issue was whether the accused shared a common intention to cause the death of the victim, and whether each accused's individual actions aligned with the legal provisions of common intention under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied legal principles from previous cases to determine the existence of common intention and individual culpability. It emphasized the need for evidence of pre-arranged concert and intention to commit the crime collectively.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction of one appellant, discharged another from liability of bail bonds, upheld the conviction of one appellant, and convicted and sentenced another appellant under a different section of the Indian Penal Code.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
In Boarijore (Lalmatiya) PS Case No. 26 of 2008, Sufal Hembram, Chota Dugo Hembram, Bara Dugo Hembram, Dubbo Hembrom, Kadbo Soren @ Chajja Soren and Som Soren were made accused on an allegation that in furtherance of common intention they have committed murder of Bajal Murmu. The wife of Bajal Murmu gave her fardbeyan at 19:00 hrs. on 29.02.2008 at village Babupur before N.K. Sah, SI of Lalmatiya police station. In his fardbeyan, Talamai Marandi stated that she had accompanied her husband to Hatia and while returning when they reached west of Dorma Chowk at about 05:00 PM, she saw that the accused were standing near the bicycle shop of Pradeep Pandit. When they reached near the bicycle shop, Chota Dugo Hembram caught hold of her husband and they started assaulting him. According to the informant, Chota Dugo Hembram attacked her husband with knife and when he fell on the ground Sufal Hembram threw a big stone on the head of her husband - her husband breathed his last on the spot. She has further alleged that when Hanju Murmu tried to intervene to save her husband, Chota Dugo Hembram chased him threatening with knife. About the reason for the murder of her husband, she has stated that two months back the accused with an intention to kill her husband had come to her house but when found that her husband was not there, they took away her goat. A First Information Report was lodged against the above named six accused under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and on completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against five of them, except Som Soren. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Godda took cognizance of the offence vide order dated 28.06.2008 and a charge was framed against five persons, namely, Sufal Hembram, Chota Dugo Hembram, Bara Dugo Hembram, Dubbo Hembrom and Kadbo Soren @ Chajja Soren under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 20.11.2008.
2. The records of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 447 of 2011 which were tagged along with these appeals would reveal that a separate charge under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against Som Soren on 17.11.2008 and he has faced the trial in Sessions Case No. 238 of 2008 - he has been convicted and sentenced to RI for life and a fine of Rs. 2000/-under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgments in both the sessions cases are written by the same learned Sessions Judge and we do not find any reason why the trial with respect to Som Soren was conducted simultaneously but separately in the same Court. In course of hearing, we were also apprised that Dubbo Hembrom and Kadbo Soren @ Chajja Soren who were facing trial along with these appellants in SC No. 172 of 2008 had jumped the bail at the stage when their statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was to be recorded by the Court and, accordingly, their case records were separated awaiting for their appearance. In Sessions Trial No. 172A of 2008, they have been convicted and sentenced to RI for life with a fine of Rs.2000/-under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. We have seen the order dated 31.07.2018 passed in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 537 of 2018 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 547 of 2018 by which Dubbo Hembrom and Kadbo Soren @ Chajja Soren were granted bail by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court. We find that in the order dated 31.07.2018 there is no reference of these criminal appeals and reason for that appears to be a mistake on the part of the Registry. The learned counsel appearing in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 537 of 2018 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 547 of 2018 is not ready with the matter and we have already heard these three criminal appeals in substantial parts. Therefore, we are not inclined to adjourn these matters and would proceed to dispose of Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 481 of 2011, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 446 of 2011 and Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 482 of 2011-the appellants in other appeals were convicted by separate judgments.
3. In the trial, the p
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
