Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

while his uncle Md. Azarul (PW-2) was getting the court-yard of his house filled with mud, his neighbors Md. Kallamuddin, Md. Saiyed, Md. Ajaj @ Bauka and Md. Saiyyad, objected to taking the tractor through their land. It is further Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2016 dt.02-05-2025 alleged that in the night all the accused persons held a meeting at their house and decided that they would not allow the tractor laden with earth to go by that way. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 16.03.2014, at around 07:30 a.m., while the mother of the informant, Meena Khatoon (deceased) was at the door and was talking to them in order to resolve the issue, all of a sudden Md. Saiyyed got into a verbal altercation with the informant's mother and started hurling abuses and also exhorted to assault her. It is further alleged that by the time the informant came out, he saw that Md. Kallamuddin, Md. Saiyyed and Md. Naushad had caught hold of his mother and Md. Ajaj @ Bauka, who was ripping a bamboo cob/root of maize by means of an axe, assaulted the mother of the informant on the right side of her neck by the said axe owing to which she fell down and due to serious injury, she died on the spot immediately. Thereafter, a crowd assembled at the place and caught hold of two accused persons while others managed to escape. The informant has also stated that after his statement was read over to him and he had found the same to be correct, he had put his signature over the same ( Exhibit-1/1). There are two witnesses to the fardbeyan, one being Md. Sahil Anwar (not examined) and one Sahjahan, PW-8.

19. Md. Saheb Alam (PW-6) is the informant and also the son of the deceased. In his deposition while reiterating the prosecution story as stated in the fardbeyan, he stated that the accused persons had a meeting in the night and when the deceased was talking to Sitara Khatoon at the darwaza, Ajaj, Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2016 dt.02-05-2025 Saiyad, Kallamuddin and Naushad came there and started quarreling. He further saw that his mother was held by Kallamuddin, Naushad and Saiyad while Ajaj, who was ripping bamboo cob / root by means of an axe, gave an axe blow upon the mother of the informant on the right side of the neck upon the order given by Kallamuddin, due to which his mother fell down. It is stated that Saiyad also assaulted from the back portion of a spade on the neck of the deceased and his mother died immediately on the spot. He claims to identify the accused persons and has also identified his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. This witness has further stated in his cross-examination in paragraph no. 10 that Sitara Khatoon, the daughter-in-law of Kallamuddin, took his mother to her house for some talk and got into a verbal embroil with her. It has been stated that although the mother of this witness was caught hold of in the courtyard of Kallamuddin, but Ajaj did not assault her there, rather he assaulted her outside the courtyard where he was ripping the bamboo cob / root. Other villagers also assembled at the place of occurrence after the death of the deceased. The police is also said to have arrived at the place of occurrence at 08:30 AM and had taken his statement at the darwaza. It has further been stated in paragraph Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2016 dt.02-05-2025 no. 13 that Kallamuddin and Bauka had not fled away, but had rather concealed themselves. However, the police caught them. In paragraph no. 14 of his cross-examination, this witness further states that he had tried to save his mother at the time of altercation, but he was also pushed. He has further stated that the police tried to look for the axe, but the family members of the accused persons had concealed the axe somewhere and the same could not be recovered. He has further stated that there was no dispute between the two families prior to the date of occurrence and has also stated that the appellant Bauka was sane at the time of occurrence. This witness has also denied the defence suggestions like other witnesses.

24. The defence has also examined one witness in its favour being DW-1, Jamalluddin, who has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knows both the parties as he is from the neighbouring village. He has stated that on the date of occurrence at about 7 a.m., he had gone to the house of Ajaj @ Bauka for taking an amount of Rs. 1000/- which the later had taken from him ten days earlier. When he reached there, he saw that hulla being raised and Ajaj @ Bauka was ripping/peeling a Bamboo cob/root, by means of an axe, which he left in the Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2016 dt.02-05-2025 courtyard and went away. He has further stated that the deceased Meena Khatoon, slipped on the said bamboo and fell down to hurt herself from the axe and owing to such injury, she died on the spot. This witness has stated that Ajaj never gave an axe blow. Neither Ajaj assaulted by means of lathi nor Kallamudin did anything. He has further stated that Saiyad and Md. Naushad, sons of Kallamuddin, had gone to Delhi six months prior to the occurrence. During the cross- examination, this witness has stated that his house is near the house of the informant Md. Saheb Alam, PW-6 and he has also made a reference to the incident which took place one day prior to the date of occurrence, with regard to the filling of mud by the informant and others, which was objected to by the accused persons. The witness has further stated that the deceased Meena Khatoon had suffered injury on the right side of neck by the same axe which was being used by Ajaj for ripping/peeling a Bamboo cob/root. However, the witness also clarifies that Ajaj @ Bauka did not kill the deceased.

42. The only question now to be considered is as to whether the present case would fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC or would be one covered by Section 304 Part II of the IPC. Despite the consistent evidence of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the appellant Ajaj inflicting axe blow Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.642 of 2016 dt.02-05-2025 upon the deceased, there is neither any allegation nor any injury found to show any repetition of blows. The medical evidence clearly demonstrates that there is a single incised injury caused by sharp cutting weapon and the same further suggests that there is no injury of the bone, which is indicative of the fact that blow was not very forceful. The entire sequence of events are not suggestive of any premeditated plan to commit the death of the deceased. Rather the death of the deceased has taken place on account of a sudden fight in the heat of passion. It is apparent from the facts of the case that the appellant Ajaj was ripping a bamboo cob with an axe, as consistently stated by all the prosecution witnesses, including the defence witness. The prosecution has nowhere made out a case that the appellant Ajaj was armed with an axe on account of some premeditated plan to kill the deceased, nor it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Ajaj had concealed the axe somewhere which he brought to commit murder of the deceased. The prosecution case rather reveals, without any ambiguity that the appellant Ajaj was engaged in the work of ripping the bamboo cob with the help of the said axe and it is for no other reason that he was armed with an axe.