Bhuranga Uraon vs Emperor

Verma, J.—This is a reference under S. 374, Criminal P.C., by the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, who has convicted Bhuranga Oraon under S. 302, I.P.C., and awarded the capital sentence to him. There is an appeal also by Bhuranga Oraon against that conviction and sentence.

The case for the prosecution is that on 26th June 1935, Bhuranga and his father Suna Oraon went to plough a field in their land known as Murgacha land in village Hurhuria in the sub division of Gumla. About mid-day they stopped ploughing, the bullocks were unyoked, and while they were resting the lather Suna noticed that the bullocks were straying towards the neighbouring fields and called and asked His son Bhuranga to prevent them from damaging the neighbouring fields. Bhuranga refused, were upon, it is said, Suna threw a clod of earth at Bhuranga. Bhuranga thereupon lost his temper and assaulted his father with a stick which has been produced before us and was numbered as material Ex. 1 in the lower Court. The first information report was lodged by a brother of the accused called Duga who reported the matter at the police station on 27th June 1935, the distance to the thana being about six miles. The delay in lodging the information was explained by the fact that there was a heavy downpour of rain the previous night. While the assault was going on two witnesses ran to the place and saw the actual assault by the accused upon his father : one was P.W. 3 Chyan, who ran to the place from a distance of 175 yards, and the other was P.W. Soma, who came from a distance of 250 yards. Duga reached there soon after the assault and found his father able to speak. On being asked his father said that the accused had beaten him with a lathi because the deceased had hit him with a dhela and had called him "korhi" which has been translated differently at different places. At one place it was translated as a leper and at another as idle. This statement of the deceased was mentioned in the first information report and was also mentioned by Duga in his statement before the Court of Sessions. There is another witness called Timru, P.W. 6, who heard Suna saying that he had thrown a clod of earth upon Bhuranga, whereupon Bhuranga had assaulted him. So far as the accused is concerned, when questioned by the witnesses Duga, Chyan and Soma, he said that he had assaulted his father because his father hit him with a clod of earth. The same statement was repeated before the committing Magistrate on 16th July 1935 and the fact that he had assaulted his father was also before the Sessions Judge when examined under S. 342, Criminal P. C. There is one thing to be mentioned and that is the intellectual development of the accused. When he was produced before a Magistrate on 27th June 1935, we find from the order-sheet that the Magistrate gave him the usual warnings, and notes "he does not speak anything and appears not to understand anything" On 18th July 1935, we find from the commitment order of the learned Subdivisional Officer when the accused was being examined before him, that he answered with difficulty and appeared dazed and therefore he suggested that the Civil Surgeon''s opinion on his mental and physical health should be taken. That is why we find that when the ease came before the Court of Sessions, by the very first order fixing the date of hearing, it was ordered that the Superintendent of the Jail should keep the accused under observation and submit a report to that Court as to his mental condition by 9th August 1935. This was done and the Civil Surgeon was examined as P.W. 1 in the case to give his opinion on the mental condition of the accused. He was of opinion that the accused was not of unsound mind but was of a very primitive and low level of intelligence. He was slow in answering and calculating. He put on a silly expression showing want of mental alertness. He had a facial twitch indicating some want of mental balance. The Civil Surgeon was further of opinion that he was not in a position to say that the accused did not know that he was murdering his father or that he was doing wrong in murdering his father; but added that he would be capable of committing such a crime on much less provocation than a normally developed person. The learned Judge himself noticed this peculiarity in the accused because in his judgment we find reference being made to the fact that during the trial the accused was observed looking out of the door as though the proceedings did not much concern him.

Now the question that has to be decided is firstly whether the accused assaulted his father which resulted in the death of Suna, and secondly, what is the offence that the accused has committed, if it is proved that he was the assailant. Now on the evidence of witnesses when I have mentioned before and the statement of the accused himself, there is no doubt that he assaulted his father. The only question that remains is whether he is guilty under S. 302 or any other section of the Indian Penal Code. From the remarks that I have quoted of the learned Magistrate as well as of the learned Judge about his demeanour in Court as well as from the evidence of the Civil Surgeon, it is clear that his intelligence is not of a normal type; at the same time in view of the opinion of the Civil Surgeon it cannot be said that he did not realise the difference between right and wrong. Therefore he cannot be held to be free from responsibility on account of his mental condition. Then the question arises that if he cannot get the advantage of his mental condition, what is the offence for which he can be held to be guilty. The injuries upon the deceased were fourteen in number. There were some punctured wounds also near the left lower jaw. There were a few fractures, one of the ulna, one of the parietal bone and one of the third rib. The witnesses as well as the accused all say that the assault was committed by means of a danta. The doctor who held the post mortem examination was of opinion that all the injuries could have been caused by a blunt weapon. He was doubtful if the punctured wounds could be caused by this danta; and when shown a plough-share, he said that some of the injuries could be caused by the plough-share that was shown to him. Looking at the bamboo stick, it appears that during the assault it split up and in the absence of the fact that no eyewitnesses saw any assault on the deceased with a plough-share, it is not necessary for us to hold that the ploughshare was used simply by looking at the nature of the injuries. The punctured wounds might easily have been caused by the split portion of the bamboo stick.

The accused himself had six injuries upon his person. The first four were near his wrist, elbow and left forearm evidently caused by the rope with which he was tied when being taken to the thana. There are two injuries, one on the right frontal region of the head and one on the right side of the face near the maxilla. It is not however very difficult to imagine that the last two injuries might have been caused by the clod of earth that was thrown by the deceased and which hit the accused because the accused has all along been saying that he was hit by the deceased and the deceased also made that statement before witnesses. That there was provocation by this act of the deceased there can be no doubt. The question is whether it can be held to be grave and sudden so as to bring it within Excep. 1, S. 300, I.P.C. For that we will have to consider the time and occasion when the provocation was given. The same provocation which may not be grave at one time may become grave at another. The accused had worked since the morning in the month of June; at mid-day he was resting. We do not know the exact temperature that day, but judging from the fact that there was a heavy downpour of rain that night, one can imagine that the weather was sultry and in those circumstances if the deceased hit him with a clod of earth knowing full well that the accused''s intelligence was not of a normal kind, I would hold that in these circumstances the provocation was grave and sudden so as to bring Excep. 1, S. 300, I.P.C., into play. I would therefore convict the accused under S. 304 and sentence him to seven years'' rigorous imprisonment.

Rowland, J.

I agree.