Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, NAVNEET KUMAR, JJ.
Sitaram Mundari S/o Late Budhan Mundari – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 746 of 2013
Decided On : 19-12-2023
JUDGMENT :
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, J.
1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 30.07.2013 and Order of sentence dated 31.07.2013, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Saraikela Kharsawan, in Sessions Trial No. 115 of 2011 arising out of Kharsawan P.S. Case No. 23 of 2010 (G.R. Case No. 595 of 2010) registered under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Shyam Mundari by which the appellants have been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and have been directed to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 4,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, both the convicts have been directed to undergo S.I. for one month.
2. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as:
According to the fardbayan of the informant Yasoda Mundari, the case of the prosecution was that on the night of 29.07.2010, she was sleeping at home with her husband Shyam Mundari and children when at around 10:00 pm, a sound was heard from Sega Mundari's house located next to them. When she heard a commotion, her husband Shyam Mundari went to Sega's house and saw that Sega was fighting with his brother-in-law Sarjam Horo and sister Mini, so he started admonishing them and asked them not to fight with the guests. Upon this Sega got angry and hit him with fist. Thereafter, he came back home. Immediately after that, at about 10.15 p.m. Sega Mundari came to her cousin Sita Ram Mundari's door outside her house, pulled her husband out of the house and both of them started beating him with fist and feet. When Boyo Mundari and his brother Suklal Mundari came from the adjacent house to save him then both of them started quarreling with them also and ran away after beating up the informant's husband and leaving him half dead. On 30.07.10, the informant got her husband treated but his condition did not improve and on 30/31.07.2010, at about 3 o'clock in the night, he died in front of the informant at her house, after which Sega and Sita Ram ran away from the village. After sending information about the occurrence through the watchman, when Bada Babu came to the village, the informant gave her statement in front of the villagers.
3. The informant alleged that the death of her husband Shyam Mundari was due to the internal injuries caused by her neighbors Sega Mundari and Sita Ram who had beaten her husband with the intention of killing him.
4. On the basis of the statement of the informant, FIR being Kharsawan Police Station Case No. 23/10 dated 31.07.2010 was registered against the accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after due investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellants.
5. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 302/34 of the IPC was framed to which the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution has altogether examined 10 witnesses, namely, PW-1 Puhutu Sinjuri, PW-2 Dibar Hembrom, PW-3 Dr. O.P. Chaudhary, PW-4 Chandmuni Mundarin, PW-5 Boya Mundari, PW-6 Animesh Kumar Gupta, PW-7 Jasoda Mundari, PW-8 Nandi Mundari alias Anandi Mundari, PW-9 Kayari Mundari and PW-10 Sukhlal Mundari.
7. The Defence has not examined any witness in support of their case. The learned trial court, on appreciation of the evidences produced on behalf of the prosecution, has found the allegation proved beyond all reasonable doubt and accordingly, passed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which is impugned in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law for the following reasons:
(i) The prosecution has failed to appreciate that it is not a case where any ingredient of Section 302 I.P.C. is available.
(ii) The appellants have used no weapon to assault on the deceased a
AI
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the presence of intention and premeditation, with the absence of these elements allowing for a conviction under Section 304 instead of S....
(1) Intention of a person cannot be proved by direct evidence but is to be deduced from the facts and circumstances of a case – ‘Intent’ and ‘knowledge’ cannot be equated with each other – They conno....
The court clarified that the distinction between murder and culpable homicide is based on the intention or knowledge of the accused at the time of the act, and that sudden provocation can mitigate th....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, highlighting that the accused acted with sufficient intent, despite claims of provocation, based on consistent eyewitness testimoni....
The court reclassified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-II IPC due to lack of intent and motive.
The distinction between 'intention' and 'knowledge' in establishing culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the requirement to prove the accused's mental attitude towards the co....
Altercation due to a love triangle led to unintentional death; court ruled for culpable homicide, not murder, emphasizing the lack of premeditation.
The court ruled that the actions of the appellants amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, reducing their conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 Part II IPC due to lack of intent.
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
