The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt in criminal jurisprudence.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. At the outset, it needs to refer herein that the appeal against the appellant no.1-Ram Chandra Tripathy (since dead), was abated, vide order dated 13.08.2024.

2. The instant appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 27.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 28.01.1998 passed by the learned 1^st Addl. Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No.83 of 1989, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further, sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence punishable under Section 323 read with of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution case

3. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the deceased Purno Chandra Tripathi recorded by an A.S.I. of Dumaria P.S., which reads as under:

4. On 26.05.1978 in the morning, the informant-deceased had gone to his fields where he found that the accused Ram Chandra Tripathi (since dead) of Village Nichintpur ploughing the field, to whom, he asked not to plough the field. Upon this, the said accused along with the accused Bhawani Shankar Tripathi (died during pendency of trial), Mrityunjay Tripathi (appellant herein) and Ambujakshya Tripathi (appellant herein) assaulted him by means of sword and lathi.

5. At the time of assault, the informant’s son namely Ashwini Kumar, Kumud Ranjan Panda and Ashwini Kumar Kar witnessed the occurrence. The occurrence was said to be illegal ploughing of the informant’s field by the accused persons. The fardbeyan was thumb-impressed by the informant-deceased after hearing its contents and finding them to be correct. The fardbeyan was also signed by the witnesses Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, Ramesh Chandar Gowala, Raj Kishore Mahapatra, Subodh Chandra Mahapatra and Tika Ram Mardi.

6. On the basis of fardbeyan, a formal Dumaria P.S. Case No.4/78 was instituted by the Police against all the accused persons and the investigation was carried out. After three days of said occurrence, the informant/deceased died during treatment at the hospital.

7. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 /34 of the IPC was submitted against all the accused persons.

8. Thereafter, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions for trial and disposal. In course thereof, the accused Bhawani Shankar Tripathi had died and his name was dropped from the record. After framing of charges, the accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

9. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined altogether 11 witnesses, i.e., P.W.1-Raj Kishore Mahapatra, P.W.2-Ashwini Kar, P.W.3-Kumud Ranjan Panda, P.W.4-Subodh Mahapatra, P.W.5-Tika Ram Mardi, P.W.6-Ashwini Kumar Tripathi, P.W.7- Dr. R.K. Sharma, P.W.8-Dr. Suresh Chowdhary, P.W.9-Dr. Prithiviraj, P.W.10-M.S. Khan and P.W.11-Investigating Officer.

10. The trial Court, after concluding the evidence of prosecution, recorded the statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in which, accused persons had denied the prosecution evidence and claimed to be innocent.

11. The learned trial court, after perusal of record found the charge levelled against the accused/appellants proved. Accordingly, the accused/appellants have been found guilty, as such, convicted and sentenced vide impugned judgment of conviction dated 27.01.1998 and order of sentence dated 28.01.1998, which is the subject matter of instant appeal.

Arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants

12. Mr. Amit Kumar Das, learned