Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
Khoshi @ Khosi Mahto – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (S.J.) Nos. 703, 704 of 2012
Decided On : 03-04-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304(II), 323, 324 - Conviction and sentencing of appellants for homicide and assault - Appellant Khoshi Mahto convicted under Section 304(II) IPC for causing death, while others under lesser charges - Court affirms conviction based on evidence of multiple injuries inflicted with a sharp weapon, establishing knowledge of likely death. (Paras 1, 19, 20)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured witnesses - The court emphasizes the reliability of injured witnesses, whose accounts were consistent and corroborated by other evidence, leading to the affirmation of convictions. (Paras 13, 18)
Facts of the case:
The incident arose from a land dispute, resulting in the death of Giro Mahto and injuries to others, with the accused assaulting the victims during a confrontation over agricultural activities.
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence sufficient to uphold the convictions, noting the nature of the injuries and the circumstances of the incident.
Issues: The main issues included the intention behind the assault and the applicability of Section 304 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the injuries and the circumstances indicated that the accused had knowledge that their actions could result in death, affirming the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC.
Result: The appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 28.05.2012 and order of sentence dated 06.06.2012 passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-II, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 451 of 2009 whereby and whereunder the appellant-Khoshi @ Khosi Mahto has been convicted and sentence under Section 304(II) of the IPC, appellant-Jhari Mahto under Section 323 of the IPC and appellant-Bishun @ Bishu Yadav under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Jhari Mahto being 81 years of age, has been given the benefits of Probation of Offenders Act, whereas other two appellants have been sentenced to different terms of imprisonment.
2. As per the fardbeyan of Ramdeo Yadav recorded on 21.07.2009 in Sadar Hospital, Giridih at 9 O’ Clock, on the said date in the morning at 5 O’ Clock his father Jhari Mahto along with his son Bishu Yadav had gone for transplanting paddy in his field which was objected to by his uncle Giro Mahto. Khoshi Yadav with Farsa, Dulari Devi with Lathi started abusing the informant. When this was objected to, Khoshi Yadav indiscriminately assaulted Giro Mahto by Farsa all over his body. On Hulla, when Tuplal Mahto came there, Bishu Yadav inflicted Tangi blow over his leg, Jhari Mahto and Dulari Devi also joined the assailants and started assaulting with Lathi, as a result the informant sustained bleeding injury. The injured were taken for treatment to Sadar Hospital, Giridih.
3. Genesis of the offence is dispute over monetary transaction. On the basis of written report, Giridih (Mufassil) P.S. Case No. 221/2009 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 307, 506, 448/34 of the IPC against Khoshi Mahto, Dulari Devi and Bishu Yadav. Police, on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against Jhari Mahto, Bishu Yadav and Khoshi Mahto.
4. All the three accused persons were put on trial under Sections 341, 323, 324, 302, 506, 448/34 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced as stated above.
5. Altogether nine witnesses have been examined and Exhibit 1-7 including post-mortem report of deceased Giro Mahto and injury report have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit. After the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused persons was recorded. Defence is of innocence and two defence witnesses have been examined.
6. After the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were also examined on behalf of the defence. The certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of Ramdeo Mahto and others by Giro Mahto on 25.06.2003 has been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit A and the copy of the FIR in Sadar Mufassil Case No. 222/09 lodged by Jhari Mahto against Giro Mahto and others under Sections 341/323/324/307/34 of the IPC has been not as Exhibit B.
7. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of appellant-Khoshi Mahto that the injuries alleged to be inflicted, were not on vital part of body which will be evident from post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-1). All the injuries were on the leg and death took place seven days after the incidence which will go to show that there was no intention to cause death. In this view of matter offence under Section 304 Part II IPC is not proved. Furthermore, the matter involves bona-fide land dispute and the assault was not the outcome of the pre-meditation and pre-concerted design. Appellants were ploughing their own field and when this was obstructed, they acted in self defence.
8. Learned A.P.P. has repelled the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants. It is submitted by learned counsel that there are two fundamental ingredients of Section 304 Part II IPC, first is of causing death with the requisite intention and second is with the knowledge. In the instant case, as per the post-mortem report, the death was caused by shock and hemorrhage caused by multiple injuries. It has come in evidence that those injuries we
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC, establishing that the accused had knowledge that their actions could likely result in death, based on the nature of injuries inflicted.
The court emphasized the necessity of careful scrutiny of witness testimonies and the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal cases, leading to acquittals and affirmations of convictions based on e....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles outlined in the Supreme Court judgments to evaluate the nature of the assault, the intent of the accused, and the....
The court clarified that in cases of mutual fights, absence of premeditated intent necessitates a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, reflecting knowledge rather than intent to kill.
The court held that when a death occurs from a single blow in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, it may be classified under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The incident constituted sudden provocation without premeditation, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC and allowing for a sentence modification based on mitigating factors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellant for the offence under section 304 part ....
The judgment established the importance of clear evidence linking the accused's actions to the alleged offence and highlighted the legal principles related to sudden fights and heat of passion in det....
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
