Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Santu Nagesia, S/o Chaitu Nagesia - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 97 of 1997 (R)
Decided on : 14-01-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The appellant was convicted for the murder of Harihar Mishra and sentenced to life imprisonment. The incident occurred during a fishing trip, where the appellant assaulted the victim with a Tabla, leading to his death. (Paras 2, 3, 18)
(B) Evidence - Witness testimony - The prosecution presented multiple eyewitnesses (P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6) who consistently testified to the assault, negating claims of provocation or spur-of-the-moment action. (Paras 18)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Harihar Mishra during a fishing trip on 16.11.1987, where he allegedly struck the victim with a Tabla after a conversation. The victim died shortly after the assault. (Paras 3, 18)
Findings of Court:
The court found overwhelming evidence against the appellant, including consistent eyewitness accounts and corroborating medical evidence, affirming the conviction for murder. (Paras 18)
Issues: The main issues included whether the appellant acted in self-defense or under provocation, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the conviction. (Paras 15, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence did not support claims of provocation, and the assault was premeditated, thus justifying the conviction under Section 302 IPC. (Paras 18)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.04.1997 passed by Sri Gangadhar, learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 218 of 1988, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out the fardbeyan of Jagbandhu Ram recorded on 16.11.1987, in which, it has been stated that Harihar Mishra of Kansari Mohalla has lands at Bajratola Dobnapani and for harvesting of the crops the informant had gone with Harihar Mishra to the said place. After the crops were cut they were kept in the khalihan. It has been stated that today i.e. 16.11.1987 he and Harihar Mishra had gone to catch fish when they saw Chhotku Kharia already catching fish and he was asked to bring two fishing rods. The fishing rods were immediately brought by Chhotku Kharia after which the informant and Harihar Mishra got busy catching fish. The shepherd of Ram Prasad Ram namely, Santu Nagesia (appellant) was grazing cattle nearby and Radha Ram, the son of Baldeo Ram was also grazing cattle. It has been alleged that Harihar Mishra started making small talks with Santu Nagesia. Since darkness was descending the informant asked Harihar Mishra to return to the village. Harihar Mishra after handing over the fishing rod to Chhotku Kharia started washing his hands and the informant in the meantime had seen a signal from Radha Ram to Santu Nagesia and Santu Nagesia committed an assault upon Harihar Mishra with a Tabla after which he fled away towards the jungle. The incident was also witnessed by Tulsi Bhagat who was grazing cattle nearby. The informant had brought the injured Harihar Mishra to the house of Bhadwa Nagesia and while he was going to Palkot to call a Doctor he had seen Ram Prasad Ram fleeing away towards the forest. After about one hour of the incident Harihar Mishra died in the house of Bhadwa Nagesia.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Palkot P.S. Case No. 72 of 1987 was instituted u/s 302/120B of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 218 of 1988. Charge was framed against the accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as nine witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Chhotku Kharia) has stated that he was catching fish when Jagbandhu and Harihar came and they wanted fishing rods as they also expressed their desire to catch fish. He went and brought two fishing rods from his house. Thereafter all three got themselves engaged in catching fish when Santu Nagesia came and started conversing with Harihar Mishra. When Jagbandhu and Harihar started washing their hands Santu Nagesia assaulted Harihar Mishra with a Tabla. The assault was committed on a signal given by Radha who was standing nearby. Santu and Radha thereafter fled away towards the direction where Ramprasad and Baldeo were present. Harihar Mishra was taken to the house of Bhadwa Nagesia where after one hour he died. There was a land dispute between Harihar Mishra and the Nagesias. A meeting was held a day prior to the incident in the house of Baldeo where the murder of Harihar Mishra was planned.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had gone to the place of occurrence to catch fish. He had never witnessed any quarrel or scuffle between the accused and Harihar Mishra. Before Jagdambu and Harihar Mishra came he was catching fish alone. Harihar was catching fish since 3:00 P.M. Santu had a conversation with Harihar after which he left to graze the cattle. Harihar and Santu had conve
The court affirmed the conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC, ruling that the evidence indicated premeditated assault rather than provocation.
The prosecution failed to establish the appellant's guilt in the murder case due to inconsistent eyewitness testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence.
The court upheld a conviction for murder based on eyewitness testimonies, affirming that the familiarity of rural witnesses with the accused overcame visibility doubts.
The court established that the assault on the deceased was provoked by a land dispute, determining it constituted culpable homicide rather than murder due to the lack of intent to kill.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on cogent and reliable evidence of eyewitnesses, the nature of the injury, and the circumstances of the case to uphold the conviction ....
A conviction for murder was modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to evidence supporting a sudden quarrel and absence of premeditated intent.
Eyewitness testimony in rural settings is reliable, and the absence of motive does not undermine the conviction for murder under Section 302/34 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings.
The necessity of corroborative evidence in cases of murder and the interpretation of common object under Section 149 IPC, emphasizing that mere presence at the scene does not equate to participation ....
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
