IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Choutha Munda and Another - Appellants
Versus
State of Bihar – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 154 of 1994 (R)
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300, 302, 149, 147, 148 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Charges framed – Offence of murder – Judgment of conviction –Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner IV, Ranchi in S.T. by which appellants were found guilty and convicted for offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for offence punishable under Section 302/149 of Penal Code, 1860 – Held, we find no force in contention of learned counsel for appellants that crime alleged was not committed in furtherance of premeditated plan – Court after considering grounds as agitated on behalf of appellants and after taking into consideration discussions made hereinabove has scrutinized finding recorded by trial Court in impugned order wherefrom it is evident that learned trial Court has found that prosecution has been able to prove charge beyond all reasonable doubt against appellants by taking into consideration testimony of eye witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 being corroborated with testimony of doctor and I.O. and as such according to our considered view that cannot be said to suffer from any error, which requires no interference by this Court – Dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
[Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.]
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 6th September, 1994 and order of sentence dated 9st September, 1994, passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner IV, Ranchi in S.T. No. 262 of 1985 by which the appellants were found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860 and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302/149 of the Penal Code, 1860.
2. Vide order dated 09.05.2019 since appellants nos. 3 to 7 have passed away as such appeal is abated so far appellant nos. 3 to 7 are concerned.
3. As per fardbeyan of the informant, the prosecution case in brief, is that:
There was some Gair Mazarua land in the east side of the Basti (small village) of informant party, in which the dead body of Basti was used to be buried, for which, a dispute was going on in between the informant party and accused persons-Choutha Munda etc. for some period and previously there was proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for that land, which was alleged to be pending before the Court of law.
4. The informant while giving statement before the police by way of fardbeyan has alleged that today i.e., 12.02.1985 at 10.00 a.m. morning the members of opposite party, namely, Choutha Munda, Chamar Singh Munda, Budha Munda, Budhu Munda, Birsa Munda, Jhonda Munda, Soma Munda and Ratan Munda, in which, Choutha Munda was armed with Sawal and rest were possessing lathi-danda came and started to fix stone over the grave of one Buka Munda, upon which, the cousin brother of informant, namely Majhia Munda and father of the informant, Guru Munda forbade the accused persons to fix stone over the graveyard. On this, the accused persons shouting to kill them started to chase Majhia Munda and Guru Munda and lastly while chasing through the farm of one Kamla Pahan, till village road the accused persons by means of lathi and Sawal gave injury upon the body of Majhia Munda and Guru Munda (father of the informant) because of which his cousin brother Majhia Munda died on the spot while his father Guru Munda fell in unconscious condition. The informant has further stated that while quarrel was going on at the graveyard besides him Jado Munda, Laka Munda, Vinwas Munda were also present there. On being chased by accused persons they saved their life. Other villagers also assembled there on hearing halla (noise) who had witnessed the occurrence shall also narrate the incidence.
5. The informant has specifically stated that killing of his cousin brother-Majhia Munda and injury sustained by his father was caused by accused persons, namely, Choutha Munda, Chamar Singh Munda, Budha Munda, Budhu Munda, Birsa Munda, Jhonda Munda, Soma Munda and Ratan Munda.
6. The informant has further stated that the accused by forming unlawful assembly had killed his cousin brother and inflicted injuries over the body of his father by means of lathi and Sawal.
7. The investigating Officer learnt about the occurrence at about 14.15 hours on the same day of occurrence from one Mochi Rai Munda, who was not an eye witness of the occurrence, as such after having recorded Sahna being Sanha No. 204 dated 12.02.1985, he proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he recorded the fardbeyan of informant, basis upon which a formal F.I.R. was registered against the accused persons under Sections 147/148/149 and 302 of the Penal Code, 1860.
8. After investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused person. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions, where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 262 of 1985, wherefrom the case was received in the Court of learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for trial and disposal, wherein the charges framed against the accused was found proved and
Mallanna v. State of Karnataka
Kulesh Mondal v. State of W.B.
Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab
Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan
Masalti v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Guli Chand v. State of Rajasthan
Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras
Shamim v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi)
Darbara Singh v. State of Punjab
Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Thaman Kumar v. State (UT of Chandigarh)
Solanki Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat
Khambam Raja Reddy v. Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
The court reiterated the importance of scrutinizing testimony from interested witnesses, considering the relevance of motive in establishing guilt, and disregarding minor discrepancies in witness tes....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
Eyewitness testimony from injured relatives is credible and can support a conviction, provided it is consistent and corroborated by medical evidence.
The credibility of witness testimonies in criminal trials requires careful scrutiny, particularly when they are related to victims, and the prosecution must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.