Jharkhand High Court
Vinod Singh & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand on 7 June, 2017
Author: Pradip Kumar Mohanty
Bench: Chief Justice, Ananda Sen
CRIMINAL APPEAL (D.B.) NO. 1078 OF 2003.
(Against judgment of conviction dated 07.06.2003 and order
of sentence dated 09.06.2003 passed by Sri Ravindra
Prasad Ravi, 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in
S.T. No. 21 of 2001.)
........
1. Vinod Singh.
2. Kaushal Kishore Singh @ Kaushal Singh
3. Bharat Singh @ Ram Bharat Singh
4. Prem Singh
5. Managar Singh @ Arun Singh
Nos.1 to 5 all sons of Mahendra Singh
6. Mahendra Singh, Son of Jawahar Singh
All resident of Sidhgora Cross Road No.1,Quarter No.
14/42, P.S.Sidhgora, District Singhbhum East,
Jamshedpur. ........... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Jharkhand Respondent.
.......
PRESENT
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
........
For the Appellants :M/s. A.K. Chaturvedi, Z. Ahmad and
Rajesh Kumar, Advocates.
For the State :Mr. Sadhna Kumar, A.P.P.
For the Informant :M/s K.P. Deo and Hardeo Prasad
Singh, Advocates.
.......
Reserved on 28.02.2017 Delivered on 07/06/2017
........
P.K. Mohanty, C. J: This criminal appeal is directed against the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
07.06.2003and 09.06.2003 respectively passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in S.T. No. 21 of 2001 arising out of Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 85 of 2000, corresponding to G.R. No. 1096 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the appellants/ accused persons have been held guilty under sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for the offence under sections 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and three months respectively. Appellant no.6 Mahendra Singh has further been convicted under section 326 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and six months respectively. It is further directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The the prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.07.2000 at about 09.30 pm the informant Narendra Singh was sitting along with his brother Jaswant Singh (deceased) within the boundary of his quarter after taking meal. In the meantime cow of Mahendra Singh entered in the cowshed of the informant and started hitting the cow of the informant. The informant and his brother Jaswant Singh drove out the cow of the accused Mahendra Singh. Thereupon three sons of Mahendra Singh and one unknown person came out from their quarter forming unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons like Lathi, Iron Rod, Knife and Pistol and used abusive language to the informant Narendra Singh and his brother Jaswant Singh. On protest made by the informant and his brother, the accused persons surrounded Jaswant Singh and tried to drag him towards their quarter. The informant forbade them and then the accused Mahendra Singh assaulted the informant with Lathi which caused injury on his head and left hand. Thereafter all the accused persons dragged Jaswant Singh in front of their quarter and assaulted him with Lathi, Knife, Iron Road and butt of the Pistol. Consequently, he fell down and blood started oozing out from his body. It is further alleged that first of all, the accused Mahendra Singh assaulted Jaswant Singh with Lathi on his head and thereafter all the accused persons assaulted as a result of which he received grievous injuries. On hearing alarm family members of the informant and other persons came out of the house and then the accused fled away. It is also stated that neighbours also witnessed the occurrence. Jaswant Singh was brought to the Tata Main Hospital for treatment, but during the course of treatment he died on 14.07.2000.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan an F.I.R. being Sidhgora P.S. Case No. 85 of 2000 was registered under sections 147, 148, 447, 341, 323, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and after the death of Jaswant Singh section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in this case.
4. The police after due investigation submitted charge- sheet against the accused persons for the offence under section 147,148,447,341,323,326,307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken under the aforesaid sections and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, which was registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 21 of 2001.
5. Thereafter, the charges were framed against the accused persons for the offence under sections 147,148,149,307/149 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal code, for which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. 17 documents were marked as Exhibits in this case on behalf of the prosecution, which includes the postmortem report, Injury report, History of the deceased while he was admitted in T.M.H. at Jamshedpur, fardbeyan, inquiry report and endorsement made by different Doctors.
7. After closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellants were examined under the provisions of section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
8. The learned trial Court after analyzing the evidence and the documents produced before him and after hearing the counsel for the parties convicted the appellants for committing offence under section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. They have also been convicted for committing offence under section 148 and 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and three months respectively. Appellant no.6 Mahendra Singh has further been convicted under section 326 and 323 of the Indian penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and six months respectively. It is further directed that all the sentences should run concurrently.
9. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
10. Heard the counsel for the appellants and Addl. P.P. for the State, who was assisted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the informant. I have also gone through the lower Court's record, evidences and all documents, which were available on record.
11. In order to substantiate the charges framed against the appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether 18 witnesses including two Doctors.
P.W.12 Suman Singh claimed to be an eye witness of the occurrence. She deposed that on hearing alarm she along with her husband (P.W.13) and mother-in-law came out of the house and saw that Mahendra Singh armed with Lathi, Manager Singh armed with Rod, Prem Singh armed with Knife, Kaushal Singh armed with Lathi, Vinod Singh armed with Lati and all were using abusive language. Jaswant Singh forbade them and then Mahendra Singh and his five sons surrounded him. In the meantime, Narendra Singh objected the accused persons and then Mahendra Singh assaulted him with Lathi on his head, neck and arm. She further deposed that thereafter the accused persons dragged Jaswant Singh towards their quarter. Mahendra Singh assaulted with Lathi on the head of the deceased. Vinod Singh and Manager Singh assaulted with Rod on the head of the deceased. Prem Singh assaulted with knife on the chest of the deceased. Kaushal Singh assaulted with Lathi and Ram Bharat Singh assaulted with butt of pistol. After receiving injuries Jaswant Singh became unconscious.
During cross-examination she deposed that she had seen the occurrence till the end from the distance of about 10-12 feet. She knew the name of the son of Mahendra Singh from earlier. She deposed that other persons were witnessing the occurrence from the nearby quarter but no one had come to rescue the deceased. She deposed that first assault was made with Lathi on the head of the deceased. Mahendra Singh assaulted on the arm and neck of the deceased.
P.W.13-Balwant Singh is also an eye witness of the occurrence. He deposed that on hearing noise he came out of the house along with his wife and mother. He saw that Mahendra Singh armed with Lathi, Vinod Singh armed with Rod, Manager Singh @ Arun Singh armed with rod, Kaushal Singh armed with Lathi, Prem Singh armed with knife, Ram Bharat Singh armed with pistol and one unknown person armed with Lathi were abusing. Narendra Singh and Jaswant Singh forbade them and then all the accused persons surrounded Jaswant and was trying to drag him. In the meantime, Narendra Singh objected them and then Mahendra Singh assaulted on the head and hand of Narendra Singh. Thereafter, all the accused persons dragged Jaswant Singh towards their quarter. They assaulted Jaswant Singh with Lathi, Rod, knife and butt of pistol, consequently he became unconscious. He further deposed that firstly Mahendra Singh assaulted with Lathi on the head of the deceased and thereafter Binod Singh and Manager Singh assaulted with Rod on the head of the deceased. Kaushal Singh assaulted with Lathi, Ram Bharat Singh assaulted with butt of pistol, Prem Singh assaulted with knife on the chest and the other unknown person assaulted with Lathi. He further proved his signature on the carbon copy of inquest report, which is marked as Ext.-9.
P.W.14- Narendra Singh is the injured eye witness of the occurrence. He is also the informant of the case. The present witness supported his statement made in the F.I.R. He further deposed that firstly Mahendra Singh assaulted Jaswant Singh with lathi and thereafter Vinod Singh and others had assaulted with Rod.
During cross-examination he deposed that he was not admitted in the hospital. He further deposed that assault was made from the butt of the pistol on the back side of head, with Rod on the head and chest and with Lathi on the head of the deceased. He further deposed that unknown person was not put on T.I. parade. He further deposed that he knew the name of only two children of Mahendra Singh.
P.W.8-Sabhapati Singh is the father of the deceased. He is the hearsay witness of the occurrence. During cross- examination he deposed that he did not see the incident and he came to know about the incident from his family members.
P.W.9-Ajay Kumar Gupta, he is the neighbour of the deceased. He proved his signature on the fardbeyan which is marked as Exhibit-6. He further deposed that the statement of informant was not taken before him. During cross examination he stated that he and Narendra Singh had made signature on the blank paper.
P.W.1 is the Doctor who had examined the informant. He had found one grievous injury on the left hand of the informant and one simple injury on the back of the skull. He proved two injury reports which have been marked as Exts. 1 and 1/1. During cross-examination he stated that the injuries may be caused by fall.
P.W.5-Dr. Yogendra Nath, he is the Doctor, who had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext.3. He also proved the report sent to the police station which is marked as Exhibit 4. Apart from other simple injuries, he found two major injuries on the body of the deceased. One was on the trachea over front of neck and other was on the chest. He opined that the injuries are ante-mortem and may be caused by hard and blunt substance.
P.W.7-Dr. Shiv Shankar Prasad, he is the doctor, who has proved the pathological report of the deceased which is marked as Ext.5.
P.W.18-Dr. R. Wagji, he proved page no. 464 of medico legal register written by Dr. D.K. Bhata Mishara, which is marked as Exhibit 15. He also proved the death summary of deceased and carbon copy of death notification form issued by T.M.H. which have been marked as Exhibits 16 and 17 respectively.
P.W.16- Vikramaditya Singh is the Investigating Officer, who had started the investigation. He deposed that he had recorded the fardbeyan of informant on 07.07.2000 at about 11.30 p.m. At T.M.H. He further proved the fardbeyan, endorsement on F.I.R. and formal F.I.R. which have been marked as Exhibits 10,11 and 12 respectively. He further deposed that he had got information about the incident on 07.07.2000 at about 11.00 pm whereupon he had made station diary entry no. 186 dated 07.07.2000. He found blood mark on the grass near the quarter no. 14/12. He further proved the inquest report which is marked as Exhibit 13. During course of cross examination he deposed that the station diary entry was made by the Officer-in- charge Shiv Shankar Tiwary. Name of the informant was not written in the station diary. The case was sent to the Court on 10.07.2000. He deposed that P.W.12 had not stated before him about the assault on the neck of the deceased. Balwant had not stated that he had seen the occurrence with his mother.
P.W.15- is the another Investigating Officer of the case, who had taken over investigation of the case from P.W.16 and submitted charge sheet.
P.W.17- Ramanuj Singh has proved the station diry entry no. 186 dated 07.07.2000, which is marked as Exhibit-14.
12. From analyzing the aforesaid evidence, I could see that P.W.12 is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. She had clearly seen the incident. She has seen that Mahendra Singh had assaulted Narendra Singh with lathi on his head, neck and arm. The deceased was thereafter dragged towards the quarter and Mahendra Singh assaulted the deceased with lathi on his head. Vinod Singh and manager Singh also assaulted the deceased. As per her statement Prem Singh assaulted with knife on the chest of the deceased. P.W.13, who is also an eye witness, has also deposed in similar manner and has stated that Mahendra Singh assaulted on the head of Narendra Singh. So far assault on the deceased is concerned, he stated that Mahendra Singh assaulted with lathi on the head of the deceased and Narendra Singh, Prem Singh gave a knife blow on the chest of the deceased. Evidence of these two eye witnesses is consistent, which corroborates with the medical evidences. Doctor, who is P.W.5, has stated that wound found on the chest of the deceased is a stabbed wound. As per his evidence there was also injury on the head of the deceased. P.W.10 is also a Doctor. After going through the medical history sheet of the deceased he stated that the death of the deceased was caused due to head and chest injury and also because of lung infection and septicemia and multi system organ failure. He also corroborates in paragraph 21 that the deceased had head and chest injury. In his cross-examination he stated that these injuries were unlikely to be caused by an accident. In paragraph 25 he says that infection, which was found on the deceased could have been developed during the treatment also, and that can be a cause of death. Thus, from these evidences, it is quite clear that these persons have assaulted the deceased. P.W. 14, who is also an injured eye witness and was present at the place of occurrence with the deceased also deposed that he was assaulted and thereafter the deceased was also assaulted by the accused persons. There is no contradiction in the evidences adduced by the prosecution. As discussed earlier the medical evidences also corroborate the statement given by the eye witnesses.
13. Thus, from analyzing these evidences available on record, I find that the deceased was assaulted by the accused persons by means of Lathi, rod and was stabbed. The involvement of these appellants has been proved by ocular evidences and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidences of these prosecution witnesses. The evidence which have been led is not general in nature rather role played by each of the appellants have been categorically mentioned by the witnesses. Thus, I find that these appellants have assaulted the deceased.
14. Now the question is as to whether these appellants can be convicted for committing offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
15. This incident occurred as the cow of Mahendra Singh entered in the cowshed of the informant and started hitting the cow of the informant, then the deceased and his brother drove out the cow of Mahendra Singh. Thereupon, these appellants came out from their quarter and started using abusive languages to the informant and his brother (deceased). A protest was lodged and thereafter the assault had taken place. The deceased was being assaulted by lathi and rod, but Prem Singh gave a stab injury on the chest of the deceased as a result of which the deceased became unconscious and was taken to the hospital. The deceased remained in hospital for 7 days. The occurrence has taken place on 07.07.2000 when the deceased was taken to the hospital and he was under treatment. He ultimately died on 14.07.2000. The opinion of the Doctor shows that the reason of death was head and chest injury and because of lung infection and septicemia and multi system organ failure. The Doctor has also deposed that he saw only two injuries at the initial stage. He also deposed that death can also occur because of the infection which might have cropped up during his treatment. He stated that because of the said reason it caused multi system organ failure. Thus, I find that there is some doubt as to what is the reason of death. May be the death was caused because of infection which occurred during the treatment, which could have been avoided. Thus, there is a doubt whether this case comes within the purview of section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further none of the Doctors deposed that these injuries were sufficient enough to cause death.
16. Thus from the above discussion, I find that this case will not come under the purview of section 302 of the Indian penal Code rather this case may fall within the purview of section 326 of the Indian Penal Code. I, therefore, hold that the appellants are found guilty of committing offence under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code thus they are sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. The appellant no.4, namely, Prem Singh is in custody since 14.07.2000, thus, he is set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. The other appellants, who are on bail and have not completed 10 years of sentence, should surrender before the learned trial Court within 15 days from today to serve out the rest of the sentence. If they do not surrender within the said time frame, the trial Court is at liberty to take all coercive steps for their apprehension.
17. With the aforesaid observation and modification, this appeal is partly allowed.
(Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J.) (Ananda Sen, J) (Ananda Sen, J) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated 07/06/2017 Sharma/NAFR