SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Meghnath Munda and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 114 of 2015
Decided On : 19-06-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : M/s Akhouri Awinash Kumar and Bibhash Sinha, Advs.
For the State : Ms. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.

The conviction under Section 307 IPC was overturned due to lack of intention to cause death, while convictions under Sections 323, 324, and 341 IPC were upheld.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 324, 341, 307/34 - Conviction for assault - Appellants convicted under Sections 323, 324, and 341 IPC, but conviction under Section 307 IPC was found to be bad due to lack of intention to cause death - Evidence showed simple injuries, and no fatal blows were delivered - Sentence modified to reflect time served with enhanced fine. (Paras 1, 10, 11, 13)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Burden of proof - Prosecution failed to prove intention to commit murder, leading to the overturning of the conviction under Section 307 IPC - Conviction under other sections sustained. (Paras 10, 11)

JUDGMENT :

(Ananda Sen, J.)

This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 29.01.2015 and order of sentence dated 30.01.2015 passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 983 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellants having been found guilty of charges under Section(s) 323, 324, 341, 307/34 of Indian Penal Code, have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.5,000/- each convicts under Sections 307/34 IPC and other sentences for the other offences.

2. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment without appreciating the evidences available on record and has convicted the appellants on the basis of conjecture and surmises. He further submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate that all the injuries were found to be simple in nature and there is no allegation of repetition of blow by any of the appellants as well as none of the injuries are sufficient to cause death in their ordinary course, thus no offence under Section 307 IPC is made out against the appellants. He also argues that the intention to commit murder has not been substantiated by any witness. He also submitted that the prosecution has completely failed to produce any credible witnesses to bring home the charge against the appellants and the investigation of the case has been done in a most perfunctory manner. Thus, on these grounds, the counsel for the appellants sought for acquittal of the appellants.

3. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the the prosecution has examined six witnesses to prove its case, out of which, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 4 have supported the case of the prosecution. She further submitted that the Doctor found injuries over the body of Ramesh Munda and Ghansi Devi. She also submitted that the I.O. of this case recovered the weapon used in commission of the crime, thus there is sufficient material on the record to prove the charges levelled against the appellants. She further added that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the appellants and they are liable to be punished.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.8.2012, the informant Ramesh @ Rode Munda (P.W.4) recorded the fardbeyan at Referral Hospital, Silli before the Police stating therein that on 23.8.2012 at about 7:00 p.m., he was sitting on a bridge near his house. In the meantime, the appellants- Meghnath Munda who was crossing from there told the informant why he is murmuring and started abusing him. The informant told him that he is not murmuring about him and on this Meghnath Munda called his brother Sanatan Munda and father Shambhu Nath Munda. Sanatan Munda attacked the informant by Dowli, as a result, the informant sustained injury on his head, left leg and left hand. The appellants Meghnath Munda and Shambhu Nath Munda started to assault the informant by lathi blow. Informant became senseless. On hearing hulla, Krishna Munda and Bigan Munda (P.W.3) came and they taken the informant to Silli Hospital.

On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, Silli P.S. Case No. 64/2012 was registered for the offence under Sections 323, 324, 341 and 307/34 of Indian Penal Code against the appellants. Subsequently, the matter was taken up for investigation and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants and, accordingly, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to Court of Sessions for trial.

5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, as P.W. 1- Ghasi Devi, P.W. 2- Churamani Devi, P.W. 3- Bigan Munda, P.W. 4- Ramesh Munda (informant), P.W.5- Dr. Vidyanand Choudhary and P.W.6- ASI Mohan Ram.

The prosecution has also exhibited the following documents;

    Ext.- 1: The injury report of Ghasni Devi.

Ext.-1/1: Injury report of Ramesh @ Rode Munda, and .

Ext.-1/2: The seizure list.

P.W. 1- Ghash

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top