Hira Lal Tanti vs State of Jharkhand

The Appellant on being found guilty for committing murder of his own uncle Chhotu Tanti was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

The case of the prosecution is that on 4.6.1998 at about 11 a.m. Makhri Devi, sister of the Appellant came to the house of the Appellant, who at that time was not present in the house. At about 12 O''clock when the Appellant came home, he found Makhri Devi there to whom he asked as to why she has come to his house. He also asked her to go away. By saying so, the Appellant went away for taking bath in the river. After half an hour, when the Appellant came back, the deceased Chhotu Tanti, husband of the informant Ghutri Devi (P.W.1) asked the Appellant as to why he is not allowing his sister to enter into the house. That led to verbal altercation in between the deceased and the Appellant. Thereupon the Appellant brought a sword from his house and pierced it on the chest of the deceased. He took it out from the body and threw it down there and ran away. The deceased immediately died at the spot.

Thereafter the informant, Ghutri Devi (P.W.1) along with others brought the dead body to Saraiyahat Police Station along with others where she gave her Fardbeyan (Ext.3). Upon which a case was registered. At the time of giving Fardbeyan, sword was also produced which was seized by the police under Seizure List (Ext.5). After holding inquest on the dead body the Investigating Officer, Om Prakash Singh (P.W.9) prepared an inquest report (Ext.6). Thereafter the dead body was sent for post mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. C.P. Sinha (P.W.2) who found penetrating wound 3/4 " x 1/4 " x chest cavity deep over the front of upper part of left side of chest 2" below the left clavicle. On dissection, pleura and lung was found punctured.

Accordingly, Dr. issued post mortem examination report (Ext.1) opining therein that the death was caused due to haemorrhage and shock, as a result of aforementioned injuries.

Upon submission of the charge sheet, case was committed to the court of sessions where the accused was put on trial.

In course of trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. Of them, P.W.1, Ghutri Devi, the informant, P.W.3, Suman Tanti, cousin of the Appellant, P.W.5, Nunman Tanti @ Nunmati Tanti, maternal uncle of the father of the Appellant are the eye witnesses. P.W.4, Reshmi Devi, though claimed to be an eye witness but in view of the statement made in the cross-examination, she, according to the defence, is not an eye witness. P.W.8 is a witness to seizure of sword produced before the police.

The trial court placing its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the witnesses found the Appellant guilty and hence, recorded the order of conviction and sentence by the impugned order.

Mr. Anil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that as per the case of the prosecution, before the deceased was inflicted injury allegedly by the Appellant, there was verbal altercation in between the deceased and the Appellant whereby the Appellant while losing self control, on such provocation gave single blow which though caused death to the deceased but there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to kill the deceased and thereby the Appellant would not be guilty for an office of murder, rather the case would be of culpable homicide not amounting to murder but the trial court did not consider this aspect of the matter and hence, the impugned order is fit to be set aside.

Heard learned Counsel appearing for the State.

Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and learned Counsel appearing for the State and on perusal of the record, we do find that as per the evidence of P.W.5, Nunman Tanti @ Nunmati Tanti, Makhri Devi, the daughter of one of his nephews (Bhagina) came with him to the house of his brother the Appellant, who according to other witnesses such as P.W.1, the informant and P.W.3, Suman Tanti asked as to why she has come to his house. He asked her to go away. By saying so, the Appellant left the house for taking bath in the river. After half an hour when the Appellant came back, the deceased, as per the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 asked the Appellant as to why he is not allowing her sister to enter into the house which led verbal altercation in between the Appellant and the deceased. Thereafter the Appellant brought a sword from his house and pierced it inside the chest and then took it out and fled away after throwing the sword over there. The deceased immediately died . Thereafter the sword was produced before the police station where the dead body was taken and the informant gave her Fardbeyan. The testimonies of all these eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence showing penetrating wound over the chest. Objective finding of the Investigating Officer of getting blood mark on the ground at the alley where according to witnesses, the deceased was killed by the Appellant corroborates the ocular evidence. Nothing seems to be there on the record to disbelieve the testimonies of the eye witnesses, referred to above and therefore, the trial court has rightly found the Appellant guilty for committing murder of his uncle.

So far the submission advanced on behalf of the Appellant that the prosecution case itself reveals that there was no intention on the part of the Appellant to commit murder of the deceased and as such, the Appellant is not liable to be punished for offence of murder is not acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is not only that if one causes bodily injury with an intention to cause death, one would be held guilty for murder, rather it is also there that if one commits an act knowing that it is so eminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or likely to cause death, one can easily be held guilty for commission of the offence of murder.

In the instant case, the Appellant had pierced the sword on the chest of the deceased causing puncture of the lung and pleura which according to the Doctor was sufficient to cause death. Thus, piercing a sword over the chest was an act so eminently dangerous that in all probability it would cause death or likely to cause death.

In the circumstances, we do find that the trail court has rightly convicted the Appellant u/s 302 of the Indian penal Code. Thus, we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence, the same stands dismissed.