Jharkhand High Court
Rabindra Kumar Sahu Son Of Late Balchand ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 December, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 247 of 2003
Against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2003 and order of
sentence dated 24.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District and
Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.II) Civil Court, Gumla in Sessions Trial No.
76 of 1990.
--------
Rabindra Kumar Sahu son of late Balchand Sahu, resident of village-
Dahudarn, P.S. Polkot and District- Gumla, Jharkhand
. ........... APPELLANT
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ......... RESPONDENT
......
For the Appellant : Mrs. Sadhana Kumar, Amicus.
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashstha, Spl.P.P.
......
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
JUDGMENT
Dated: 03.12.2024:
By Court Since the learned counsel for the appellant, who is on record, has not appeared in first half of the Court proceeding on repeated calls, we requested learned counsel Mrs. Sadhana Kumar, who has more than twenty five years of practice in this Bar, to assist this Court as Amicus Curiae, considering the appeal is of the year 2003. She accepted our request and argued the case at length in the second half.
2. Heard the learned amicus and the learned counsel for the State.
3. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.01.2003 and order of sentence dated 24.01.2003 passed by the learned Addl. District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C. No.-II) Civil Court, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 76 of 1990, whereby and whereunder, the appellant having been found guilty of charge under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
4. The FIR is at the instance of Lalchand Sahu (P.W.6), who is the Page/1 younger brother of the deceased, wherein, he stated that all brothers lived separately and the mother is residing with this appellant. He stated that the daughter of the deceased had cooked fish which was not up to the mark as such, there was some criticism about the cooking. The deceased therein had gone to his mother and questioned her as to why his daughter is being criticized for the cooking. There was some altercation when this appellant, who is the brother of the informant and the deceased came with farsa (a sharp cutting weapon like sickle) and by stating that as to why the deceased is questioning her mother, in an agitated mood, struck the deceased once on his left ear with farsa, resulting in death of the deceased.
On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, Palkot P.S. Case No. 72 of 1989 under sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for committing the offence and accordingly, the cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where charge was framed under Section 302 IPC and trial proceeded.
5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution had examined altogether eight witnesses, who are as follows:-
PW-1: Urmila Devi (wife of the deceased),
PW-2: Manju Kumari (daughter of the deceased),
PW-3: Smt. Jawanti Devi (daughter of the deceased),
PW-4: Madhup Kumar Madhukar,
PW-5: Nand Kumar Sahu,
PW-6: Lalchand Sahu (the informant),
PW-7 Praduman Singh, and
PW-8 Dr. Anup Kumar Gupta.
6. Several documents have also been exhibited in this case, which are as follows:-
Ext.1 Signature of P.W.4 on the inquest report.
Ext.1/1 Signature of P.W.5 on the inquest report,
Ext.2 Signature of informant (P.W.6) on the FIR,
Ext.3 F.I.R.
Ext.4 Postmortem report.
7. After closure of evidences, the statement of this appellant and others under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, in which the appellant has pleaded innocence.
Page/2
8. The Trial Court after going through the materials on record and also considering the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has found the charge levelled against this appellant to be proved and, thereafter, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid, thus this appeal.
9. After considering the evidence and upon hearing the parties, we find that there are altogether eight witnesses in this case. P.W. 8 is the Doctor, who proved the postmortem report of the deceased (Ext.-4).
As per the postmortem, the following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:-
Parietal and occipital bone on left side of temporal fracture involving all layers of meninges and brain material to the extent of bone injury is from above the pinna of left ear to occipital bone.
Cause of Death:- Neurogenic shock, caused by hard substance or weapon.
As per the opinion of the doctor and the postmortem report, we find that only one injury was found on the person of the deceased. One blow was given by a sharp cutting weapon and the deceased died due to neurogenic shock. Thus from the medical evidence, it is clear that the death is a homicidal.
10. The main witnesses in this case is P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3, who are the eye witnesses of the occurrence. They are the wife and two daughters of the deceased. All these three witnesses stated that P.W.2 had cooked fish and the cooking was criticized by the mother of the deceased and others, when the deceased along with his family members went and confronted his mother. He questioned as to why she was criticized for the said cooking, for which, a verbal altercation had taken place. Thereafter, this appellant came with a farsa and gave one blow on the ear of the deceased, who fell down and died.
11. From the evidence of these eye witnesses, it is clear that an altercation was going on and the parties were in agitated mood. Since the deceased was questioning the mother and was confronting her, this appellant not liking the behaviour of the deceased, with a farsa (sickle) gave one blow on the ear of the deceased. The fact that one blow was given by this appellant with farsa on the deceased is also substantiated by the postmortem report.
Page/3
12. Exception-4 of Section 300 IPC reads as follows:-
"300. Murder.--Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-- 2ndly.--If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- 3rdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
4thly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Exception:- 1 to 3.......
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation.--It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception- 5........."
13. From the evidence, we find that in a spur of moment without any intention, the appellant had given one blow on the ear of the deceased with farsa. This act according to us, will not fall within the definition of Section 300 I.P.C.
Since we have come to a conclusion that this case will not fall under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, we are of the opinion from the evidence as well as medical report that this case is covered under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code.
14. Now, so far as sentence is concerned, we find that the incident had occurred on 18.11.1989 and today, we are in the month of December 2024 i.e. thirty five years have passed. Now, the appellant must be aged nearly about 50 years, thus, we reduce the sentence to the period which he has already undergone. Since the appellant is already on bail, he is discharged from the liability of bail bonds, so are the bailors.
15. With the aforesaid modification in the judgment and sentence, this appeal is dismissed.
Page/4
16. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.
17. Pending Interlocutory application, if any, is also disposed of.
18. The learned amicus assisted this Court in proper manner. In a very short time, she got herself fully prepared. Considering the able assistance of the amicus, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay Rs.7,500/- (rupees seven thousand five hundred) to the learned counsel Mrs. Sadhana Kumar, as her remuneration.
19. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the High Court Legal Services Committee for doing the needful.
(ANANDA SEN, J.) (PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.
Dated: the 03rd December, 2024.
NAFR/Anu/Cp.-3.
Page/5