Galia Pandit vs State of Jharkhand

By Court: By the impugned judgment, the trial court while acquitting 15 accused persons found this Appellant guilty for committing murder of one Dhaneshwar Pandit. Accordingly, he was convicted u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default clause.

The case of the prosecution is that on 19.3.2000 while the informant Khageshwar Pandit (P.W.1) and others were sitting in front of the house of Bharat Pandit, Jodho Pandit and Bhekhlal Pandit came over there and asked for tobacco for them. That led to a verbal altercation. However, due to intervention of others, the matter could be pacified. After ten minutes, those 2 persons and 14 others including the Appellant came variously armed in front of the house of Bharat Pandit and started pelting stones, as a result of which, some one got hurt. When alarm was raised, villagers gathered over there and they got the matter again pacified. When they went away, Khageshwar Pandit (P.W.1) left home along with Dhaneshwar Pandit (the deceased)to come to the police station on a Motor Cycle to inform about the occurrence. When they reached near a school, number of accused persons including the Appellant intercepted them. One of the accused forcibly brought down the deceased from the Motor Cycle. Thereupon the Appellant inflicted injuries upon him through sword. When informant tried to save the life of Dhaneshwar Pandit, the Appellant inflicted injuries through sword on his head. When other persons from the side of the informant reached over there, the accused persons went away.

Thereupon, on such information being given by Khageshwar Pandit to Bishnugarh police station, a case was registered. When the Investigating Officer came to the place of occurrence of murder, he made inquest on the dead body and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Bimal Kumar Verma (P.W.4) who found stabbed wound over right upper part of abdomen. He issued post mortem examination report (Ext.2) with an opinion that death occurred due to shock and haemorrhage due to injury found on the abdomen caused by sharp and piercing weapons.

On submission of the charge sheet, 16 accused persons were put on trial. During trial, the informant was examined as P.W.1. P.W.2, Token Prajapati, P.W.3, Chhoti Pandit and P.W.7, Bharat Pandit are witnesses to the first occurrence. However, they also deposed that when they reached near the school, they found dead body of the deceased where they were told by the informant that the deceased has been done to death by the Appellant. P.W.6 is another doctor, who upon examining the informant found two lacerated injuries as well as two injuries in the nature of scratches caused by hard and blunt substance. The said doctor had also examined one Nilkanth Pandit (P.W.10). The Investigating Officer was examined as P.W.11.

The trial court on appreciation of the evidence of the informant (P.W.1) found him trust worthy whose version, according to the court, got corroborated by other eye witnesses and also by the medical evidence. On such consideration, the trial court did hold that the deceased was done to death not in furtherance of the common object of all the accused but on account of individual act of the Appellant and hence, the trial court while acquitting other accused persons, convicted the Appellant but while coming to such conclusion, the trial court did not consider at all the vital aspect of the case that some of the accused persons had sustained injuries in the occurrence which fact was even been noted by the Investigating Officer (P.W.1) who had referred those injured, namely, Ishwar Prajapati, Bhiklal Prajapati, Dineshwar Prajapati and Jodho Prajapati before the Dr. S.N. Lal (D.W.2) who upon examining them found injuries on their persons. The doctor (D.W.2) found three injuries on the person of Ishwar Prajapati, out of which one was grievous as right tibia had been found fractured. In case of Jodho Prajapati, one of the injuries was found to be grievous. The injury reports had been adduced in evidence as Exts. B, B/1, B/2 and B/3. That apart, the defence also brought on the record the F.I.R (Ext.A/1) disclosing therein about the overt act committed by the persons from the side of the informant. Not only that, even the Investigating Officer, who had occasion to investigate the counter case also has deposed before the court that on finding the allegation prima facie to be true, has submitted charge sheet against some of the members of prosecution side. All these vital aspects of the case were never considered by the trial court in right perspective. If these vital facts emerging out of the same transaction are taken into consideration vis-a-vis the case of the prosecution, one would in all probability come to the conclusion that the Appellant exceeded in exercising right of private defense in committing murder of the deceased and thereby we find him guilty not for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather u/s 304 Part II.

Accordingly, he is convicted u/s 304 Part II instead of u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the Appellant, who has already suffered incarceration for about 11 years is sentenced for a period already undergone. Consequently, he is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.

With the aforesaid modification in the order of conviction and sentence, this appeal is dismissed.