Barsan Murmu vs The State of Jharkhand

This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of Sentence dated 29.07.2000 and 31.07.2000 respectively, passed by Shri Binay Kumar Sinha, Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in Sessions Case No. 90/98|12/98, convicting the Appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentencing him to R.I. for life.

Mrs. Vandana Bharti, one of the counsels in the panel of H.C.L.S.C. was appointed as amicus curiae to assist this Court.

Heard the parties.

Mrs. Vandana Bharti submitted that at best the Appellant could be convicted u/s 304, Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. However, Mr. Mukesh Kumar, learned Counsel for the State, supported the judgment under appeal.

It appears that the alleged occurrence took place on 23.9.1997 when the informant-the deceased was taking liquor along with others. The Appellant reached there and demanded liquor. The deceased told him to buy liquor from his own money. On this, the Appellant became furious and started quarreling and threatened the deceased with dire consequences. On this, there was hot exchange of words. During such altercation, the Appellant caught the deceased and fell him on the ground causing head injuries. It was further alleged that after he fell, the Appellant assaulted on his chest by a "musal" lying there which caused injuries on his chest and eyes. The persons present there along with villagers tried to pacify the matter. On next day, the deceased was taken to police station, where his fardbeyan was recorded. In the evening, he succumbed to the injuries.

The fardbeyan can be treated as a dying declaration and it is fully supported by the eye witnesses including the evidence of the doctor regarding the manner of occurrence. However, it appears that this case falls under Exception-4 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code as the prosecution has not been able to prove that there was any premeditation or intention to kill the deceased. Moreover, the occurrence took place during sudden fight and in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. There is nothing to show that the Appellant took undue advantage or acted in unusual manner.

In the result, the conviction u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside. However, Petitioner is held guilty u/s 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. So far as sentence is concerned, it appears that the Appellant has remained in jail for more than 14 years by now. Accordingly, the Appellant is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in jail.

This appeal is dismissed with the modification in conviction and sentence, indicated above. Appellant is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.