IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
Ram Ratan Mundari @ Bene Mundari - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 341 of 2010
Decided On : 03-02-2021)
Dying Declaration - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302/34, 307/34, 120B - The judgment discusses the admissibility and reliability of a dying declaration made by the victim, the corroborative evidence provided by witnesses, and the application of sections 6 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court finds the dying declaration to be credible and sufficient for convicting the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of three individuals based on a dying declaration made by the victim, Madhusudan Mundri, who accused the appellants of assaulting him and killing his family members. The court found the dying declaration to be credible and supported by the testimony of witnesses. The appellants were charged under sections 302/34, 307/34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the dying declaration of Madhusudan Mundri to be credible and admissible as evidence. The corroborative evidence provided by witnesses supported the dying declaration, and the medical evidence further corroborated the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the charges against the appellants were proved beyond doubt, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.
Issues: The key issues in the case revolved around the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, the credibility of the witnesses, and the application of sections 6 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also addressed the participation of the appellants in the crime and their liability under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the admissibility and reliability of the dying declaration, the relevance of corroborative evidence provided by witnesses, and the application of sections 6 and 32 of the Indian Evidence Act. The court also considered the participation of the appellants in the crime and their liability under section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of the appellants under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, dismissing their appeal and affirming the lower court's judgment.
JUDGMENT :
Shree Chandrashekhar, J.
Against their conviction and sentence in Sessions Trial No.170 of 2008, the appellants are in appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. In the night of 31.03.2008, Manga Mundri, Sumi Mundri and Madhusudan Mundri were attacked by Ram Ratan Mundari @ Bene Mundari and Sangram Mundari. Two of them died on the spot and Madhusudan Mundri who was given First-Aid at Primary Health Center, Bandgaon was brought to RIMS, Ranchi for treatment, however, he succumbed to the injuries within few hours. The statement of Madhusudan Mundri was recorded at about 00:30 hrs. in the intervening night of 30/31.03.2008 by Arjun Paswan, officer-in-charge of Bandgaon P.S. On the basis of his fardbeyan} Bandgaon P.S. Case No.17 of 2008 was lodged at 09: 15 AM on 31.03.2008 under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Madhusudan Mundri has stated that his cousin brothers, namely, Ram Ratan Mundari and Sangram Mundari wanted to grab his properties and in the past on several occasions they had threatened and raised dispute over his landed properties. On 30.03.2008, after taking dinner he left for Geneora (a community sleeping shelter) at about 08:30 PM. On the way Sangram Mundari and Ram Ratan Mundari who were carrying dagger waylaid him, Sangram Mundari caught hold of him while Ram Ratan Mundari struck dagger (chhura) blows over his abdomen. He ran away crying and pressing his intestine which was bulging out due to the dagger injury and fell on the ground near the house of Somrai Mundri, adjacent to his own house. Both the accused declared that they would finish his entire family and started assaulting his mother aged about 45 years and the younger brother aged about 12 years, indiscriminately with dagger and killed them. Several villagers had rushed there, they saw both the accused fleeing away and chased them. Arjun Paswan after recording the fardbeyan of Madhusudan Mundri returned to Bandgaon P.S where a First Information Report was lodged under sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ram Ratan Mundari and Sangram Mundari.
3. G.P. Sah, a sub-Inspector of Police took up the investigation and recorded further statement of Madhusudan Mundri. In course of investigation, Somrai Mundri, Diver Mundri and Budhu Mundri stated before the investigating officer that on hearing cries (huZZa) they had gone to the place of occurrence. The other co-villagers, namely, Mahajan Mundri, Patras Mundri, Balram Mundri and Sukhram Mundri stated before him that about the occurrence Somrai had informed them in the night of 30.03.2008. They had gone near his house and found Madhusudan Mundri seriously injured, his mother and younger brother had died. These witnesses stated before the investigating officer that Madhusudan Mundri had told them that Ram Ratan Mundari and Sangram Mundari had assaulted them. In course of treatment Madhusudan Mundri succumbed to the injuries at RIMS, Ranchi; the inquest was prepared by Mr. Anup Kumar Singh, S.I of Bariatu P.S. and the investigating officer collected the postmortem report. Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava who conducted the postmortem examination has found ten incised wounds on the dead body of Manga Mundri and one incised wound on Sumi Mundri, a number of ribs of both the deceased persons were found fractured and the dead body of Manga Mundri was swollen (distended). In the opinion of the doctor, the injuries were caused to them by a sharp object such as knife.
4. He has observed the following antemortem injuries on the dead bodies:
(I) Incised wound below right clavicle 1 x 1/2'x 1 1/2"
(II) Incised Wounds on right chest 2'x 1/2" x 1 1/2"
(III) Two incised wounds on chest 4 inch below nipple 1'x 1/2" x 1/2"
(IV) Two incised Wounds in right arm 2'x 1/2'x 1"
(V) Two incised wounds on right forearm 2'x 1/2'x 1"
(VI) Incised wound on right thigh 1 inch above knee 2"x 3'x 1"
(VII) Incised wound on right side of back 1 x 1/2 'x 1/4"
Sumi Mundri
(I) Abrasion on left br
State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (1996) 10 SCC 360
Bhajju v. State of M.P.” (2012) 4 SCC 327
Laxmibai v. Bhagwantbuva (2013) 4 SCC 97
Paniben (Smt) v. State of Gujarat
Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam v. State of A.P.
Rajput Jabbarsingh Malaji v. State of Gujara
State (Gout. of NCT of Delhi) u. Sunil (2001) I SCC 652
Mahbub Shah Vs. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118
Bhanuad Mepa Dana and Anr. v. The State of Bombay AIR 1960 SC 289
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.