Jharkhand High Court
Lachhu Munda And Lodro Munda vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 9 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 CRI LJ (NOC) 48, 2006 (3) AIR JHAR R 608 (2006) 3 EASTCRIC 518, (2006) 3 EASTCRIC 518
Bench: N. Dhinakar, R.R. Prasad
JUDGMENT
1. The appellants, Lachhu Munda and Lodro Munda, were arrayed as A1 and A2 and tried and convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. The allegation against them is that they, in furtherance of their common intention, caused death of Budhu Munda (D1) and his wife, Johni Mundain (D2), at 7.00 p.m. on 24.10.1995, by beating them by Dhelforwa (a mace like heavy wooden object used for breaking big pieces of earth in the field). The Trial Judge, finding them guilty, sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. The appeal is against the said conviction and sentence.
2. The son of Lachhu Munda fell sick and died a few days prior to the date of incident and the first appellant was suspecting that Budhu Munda and Johni Mundain have practised witchcraft to cause the death of the newly born child. On 24.10.1995 at about 6.00 p.m., when Etwari Mundain, P.W.7, was returning to her house, the first appellant, Lachhu Munda, catching hold of her, pressed her neck and she saw the second appellant, Lodrao Munda, present there and Budhu Munda, D1, standing near the boundary wall of the house. The first appellant, Lachhu Munda, who initially held Etwari Mundain, left her and went towards Budhu Munda followed by Lodro Munda. Luchhu Munda, taking Dhelforwa, beat Budhu Munda, D1, on the head with considerable force. Budhu Munda fell down after receiving injury. Lodro Munda, A2, it is alleged, pressed the neck of Budhu Munda, D1. At that time, Johni Mundain, wife of Budhu Munda, intervened to save her husband and the first appellant, Lachhu Munda, also beat her with the same weapon. She suffered injuries and fell down. Both of them died. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 1, Andi Mundain, P.W.2, Laxmi Mundain, daughters of D1 and D2, and P.W.7, Etwari Mundain, who was present at the place. The Sub-Inspector, on hearing certain rumours about the death of two persons in the village, went to the village where the occurrence had taken place. P.W.7, Etwari Mundain, gave fardbeyan, Ext.7, on the basis of which a crime was registered at the police station. Investigation in the crime was taken up and the Officer conducted inquest over the two dead bodies. Ext.3/2 is the inquest report in respect of D2 and Ext.4/2 is the inquest report in respect of D.1 After the inquest, the two dead bodies were sent to the hospital for autopsy.
3. On receipt of the requisition and the dead bodies, P.W.4, Dr. A.D.N. Prasad, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Johni Mundain, D2, and he found the following injuries:
1. Depressed fracture of the skull on occipital lobe with large amount of clotted blood inside the cranium.
2. Right side of the face was slightly edematous (swollen) with swelling of the eye lids .
The Doctor issued Ext.5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of shock and hemorrhage on account of the injury No. 1.
4. The autopsy over the body of Budhu Munda, D1, was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar, P.W.8. He found the following injuries:
(i). Lacerated injury 2" x 1/2" x 1/4" over left occipital region of head.
(ii). Bruise 2" x 2" over right temporal region of head with fracture of underlying bone. Brain matter congested, blood clot present.
(iii) Depressed fracture right occipital region of head. Brain matter congested, blood clot present.
(iv) Lacerated injury 2" x 1" x 1" over middle of occipital region of head with fracture of underlying bones. Brain matter congested, blood clot present.
(v) Lacerated injury 3/4 x 1/2" x 1/2" over forehead above right eye.
(vi) Bruise 1" x 1" over right upper eyelid region.
The Doctor issued Ext.6, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the injury Nos. (ii), (iii) and (iv) are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed by the Officer. The appellants, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, denied all the incriminating circumstances. No witness was examined on their side.
6. Learned Counsel, appearing for the appellants, submits that the first appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C since he must have caused the death of Dl and D2 without any premeditation as he had no weapon in his hands and both the deceased were attacked with the weapon which was lying there. It is his further submission that the second appellant is entitled to an acquittal, since the evidence of the witnesses is not corroborated by the medical evidence. On the above submission, we have heard Mr. R.R. Mukhopadhaya, learned Counsel appearing for the State.
7. The case of the prosecution is that two persons died and that they died on account of the injuries suffered by them. The evidence of the Doctors, P.Ws.4 and 8, and the post mortem certificates, Exts.5 and 6, issued by them show that D1 and D2 died on account of homicidal violence. P.Ws.1 and 2, daughters of the deceased, and P.W.7, who is the sister-in-law of D1 Budhu Munda, were examined as witnesses to the occurrence. According to P.W.7, the infant of the first appellants died a few days prior to the date of occurrence and the first appellant was suspecting that D1 and D2 have practised witchcraft to cause the death of his son. According to P.W.7, the occurrence took place on account of the said suspicion. It is the evidence of P.W.7 that while she was returning to her house, she saw the first appellant and that he held her and later on seeing D2 Johni Mundain coming out of the house, the appellants went near her. According to her, Budhu Munda, the husband of D2, came out of the house and the first appellant inflicted injuries upon him with Dhelforwa and when D2 intervened, she was also beaten with the same weapon. According to P.W.7, while Al was beating the deceased with Dhelforwa causing injuries to them, A2 was pressing the necks of both the deceased. P.Ws. 1 and 2 had given the evidence on the same line. On going through the evidence of P.Ws. 1, 2 and 7, we find no reason to reject their evidence as regards the part played by the first appellant, who caused fatal injuries on the two deceased as nothing worthwhile was elicited from their evidence for this Court to hold that they had given false evidence before the trial court. Their evidence is also supported by the medical evidence. We, therefore, accept their evidence and hold that the first appellant inflicted fatal injuries on both the deceased.
8. As regards the second appellant, we find it difficult to accept the prosecution case. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is that the first appellant was beating D1 and D2 with Dhelforwa and the second appellant was holding their necks. We are unable to accept the said allegation as it would have been difficult for the second appellant to hold the necks of the deceased while the first appellant was inflicting injuries on the head of the deceased. If the second appellant had been holding D1 and D2 while the first appellant was beating them, then the second appellant would also have suffered injuries. In any event, the case of the prosecution that he pressed the necks of Dl and D2 is also not supported by the medical evidence as the Doctors did not find any corresponding injury on the necks of Dl and D2. We, therefore, give the benefit of doubt to the second appellant, Lodro Munda, and acquit him.
9. In the result, the conviction of the first appellant, Lachhu Munda, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C is altered to one under Section 302 I.P.C and the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court is confirmed.
The conviction and sentence imposed upon the second appellant, Lodro Munda, are set aside and he is acquitted. It is reported that Lodro Munda is in jail. He is directed to be released from the jail custody forthwith, if not wanted in any other case(s).
This appeal is partly allowed and partly dismissed.