Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Arjun Soren S/o Singhrai Soren – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 453 of 2012
Decided On : 18-03-2021
Conviction - Unlawful Assembly - Indian Penal Code, CLA Act - 302/149, 17 - The court held that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and were rightly convicted with the aid of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the court found that the injuries inflicted did not indicate a common object to cause death, and set aside the conviction under section 302/149. The appellants were found liable to be convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of one of the appellants under section 17 of CLA Act were affirmed.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for their involvement in an incident where a man was assaulted and killed by a group of extremists. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased's wife and brother, who identified the appellants as part of the unlawful assembly and described the events of the night of the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants were part of an unlawful assembly and were rightly convicted with the aid of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the injuries inflicted did not indicate a common object to cause death, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under section 302/149. The appellants were found liable to be convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of one of the appellants under section 17 of CLA Act were affirmed.
Issues: Reliability of eyewitness testimony, sufficiency of prosecution evidence, non-examination of investigating officer, and the role of the appellants in the unlawful assembly.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants were rightly convicted with the aid of section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, but the injuries inflicted did not indicate a common object to cause death, leading to the setting aside of the conviction under section 302/149. The appellants were found liable to be convicted under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence of one of the appellants under section 17 of CLA Act were affirmed.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the conviction under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and affirming the conviction and sentence under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code and section 17 of CLA Act for one of the appellants.
JUDGMENT :
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J.
1. In Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2009, Arjun Soren and Raghunath Soren @ Sukra Munda were convicted and sentenced to R.I for life and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code with a default stipulation to undergo S.I. for three months. They were further convicted and sentenced to R.I. for three months under section 17 of CLA Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. Gurabanda P.S. Case No. 19 of 2008 was lodged on the basis of the fardbeyan of Dularam Murmu which was recorded early morning, about 06:10 AM on 24.05.2008 at his house in village Muchrisole. About 19 persons including Arjun Soren and Raghunath Soren along with 40-45 unknown criminals came in the midnight of 23.05.2008 to the house of the informant and captured Soken Murmu, his brother. The informant has stated that 5 criminals including one woman member entered the house and dragged him and his brother out. He has identified Kanhu Munda, Puttu Munda, Shankar Munda, Sukra Munda, Boda Munda, Kana Munda, Akash, Kamal, Shalu, Arjun Hembram, Karan Hansda, Mohan and Sabita, some dressed in fatigues, along with 40-50 persons outside his house. They surrounded the informant and his brother and on the direction of Kanhu Munda they kept his brother in confinement while other family members were locked inside the house. According to the informant, Arjun Soren was a resident of Mahespur and he was amongst the extremists who has assaulted informant, his sister, mother and other family members and locked them inside a room. While confined inside a room the informant and his family members heard sound of maarpit and somehow they escaped from their house and saw the extremists assaulting Soken Murmu by butt of gun and danda - Kanhu Munda was the extremist who assaulted Soken Murmu on his head with an axe. After the extremists left the informant and his family members came and saw that Soken Murmu was bleeding from head and he had already died. Several villagers had by that time assembled there. According to the informant a quarrel between his brother with the villagers took place for cutting of blackberry tree and in the Panchayati convened by village headman the villagers threatened to drive away Santhal families from the village.
3. From the records, we gather that a charge-sheet was submitted against Arjun Soren and Raghunath Soren, the appellants, vide Charge-Sheet No. 09/2008 dated 15.07.2008 and after the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. It further appears that some of the accused were put on trial subsequently, one sessions case was numbered Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2015. We find a reference of Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2015 in the order dated 22.08.2016 passed in the present criminal appeal. By this order original records of this case (Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2009) were sent back for the split-up case vide Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2015. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned APP informs us that another Sessions Trial No. 291-A of 2015 which was against Kanhu Ram Munda and Shankar Munda was finally disposed of on 18.07.2019. Since evidence of the witnesses was recorded separately in Sessions Trial No. 09 of 2009, we are not required to ascertain and hear other appeals if filed by the aggrieved party.
4. In the present case, the prosecution has examined three witnesses during the trial to prove charges against the appellants; the informant is PW-2. Dr. Kumar Manoranjan who conducted the postmortem examination on 24.05.2008 has found seven injuries on the dead-body of Soken Murmu and in his opinion the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage and time elapsed since death was 24 hours.
5. The appellants faced the trial on the charge under sections 148, 341/149, 302/149, 323/149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code as well as section 17 of CLA Act. The learned District and Sessions Judge, Ghatsila has
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
