IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ.
Topal Munda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 106 of 1995 (R)
Decided On : 12-09-2022
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 304 Part II - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, who was the brother of the appellant, following a quarrel that escalated into a fatal assault. The prosecution presented witness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the sequence of events leading to the death of the deceased.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the assault occurred in the heat of the moment without premeditation, and the deceased was the appellant's own brother. The court concluded that the appellant's actions warranted a conviction under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, rather than Section 302.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the nature of the assault, the presence of premeditation, and the appropriate legal provision for the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the circumstances of the quarrel, the witness testimonies, and the medical report to determine the appropriate conviction under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code, and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 29.07.1995 and order of sentence dated 31.07.1995 passed by Shri Bharat Prasad Sharma, learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in S. T. No. 340 of 1988 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant no. 2 – Bobby Mundain had died and therefore the appeal had abated as against the appellant no. 2 vide order dated 10.04.2019. This appeal is therefore now restricted to the appellant no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘appellant’) – Topal Munda.
4. The fard beyan of Herambi Mundain was recorded on 18.09.1987 in which she has stated that for some days, she and her brother-in-law were not keeping well. At about 8:00 P.M., her husband called Mulla Pahan for treatment. Mulla Pahan had started sprinkling turmeric, salt and rice and some rice accidently fell in the house of Topal Munda. At this, the wife of Topal Munda started shouting that by doing such act Mulla Pahan was projecting her as a witch. In course of quarrel, her husband came out and assaulted Topal Munda. The wife of Topal Munda – Bobby Mundain had pressed the testicles of the husband of the informant and Topal Munda had brought a knife and gave a blow on his chest as well as on his hand. When the informant raised an alarm, her brother-in-law Lakhan Munda came out by which time the accused persons fled away. The husband of the informant died at the spot.
Based on the aforesaid allegations, Murhu P. S. Case No. 45 of 1987 was instituted against Topal Munda, Bobby Mundain and Mulla Pahan for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of Indian Penal Code. Charge was framed under Section 302 I.P.C. which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. The prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses in support of its case.
P.W. 1 – Panda Lohar has deposed that about one and half years back, he had seen the dead body of Gahnu Munda in front of the house of Topal Munda. He has identified his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit 1. He has proved his signature in the seizure list with respect to seizure of blood stained earth which has been marked as Exhibit 1/1.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that the distance between the house of Gahnu Munda and Topal Munda is about 15 yards.
P.W. 2 – Buka Mahto has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Exhibit 1/2. He has also proved his signature in the seizure list of blood stained earth which has been marked as Exhibit 1/3.
P.W. 3 – Lakhi Mundain has deposed that Gahnu Munda was murdered about one year back. It was night and she was sick. When she heard the alarm raised by Gahnu, she came out from the courtyard and saw Bobby Mundain pulling the testicles of Gahnu Munda and Topal Munda had struck on the chest of Gahnu Munda with a knife, as a result of which Gahnu Munda fell down and died.
In cross-examination, she has stated that Gahnu and Topal are her brothers-in-law. She had seen Gahnu being assaulted. Topal Munda had assaulted Gahnu once. It was dark, but she had not come out with light. She thereafter stated that a Dhibri was burning. She has further deposed that after the incident Bobby Mundain and Topal Munda fled away.
P.W. 4 – Herambi Mundain is the informant who has deposed that on the date of occurrence, she was inside her house while her husband Gahnu Munda and accused Topal were outside. Bobby Mundain was pulling the testicles of her husband and Topal had stabbed her husband with a knife and she was also pushed by Topal and thereafter Topal and Bobby had fled away. Her husband had fell down and died. She had given a statement to the police.
The judgment established the principle that the nature of the assault, presence of premeditation, and relationship between the parties are crucial factors in determining the appropriate conviction un....
The court ruled the absence of premeditated intent in the assault, leading to a modification of the conviction from murder to a lesser charge under section 304 Part-II of the IPC.
Direct ocular evidence can establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, making motive irrelevant in murder cases.
Culpable homicide may be reduced to a lesser charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel without premeditation, as per Exception 4 ....
The judgment underscores the principle that a conviction must be based on reliable and corroborated evidence, and that doubts in the prosecution's case must benefit the accused.
Point of Law : Offence of Murder - Conviction set aside - Benefit of doubt - Evidence of witnesses do not energise prosecution case and falsity of allegations levelled against appellants lie threadba....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Exception 4 to Section 300, which determine liability for criminal acts done in furthera....
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.