Mangal Hansda And Others vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State.

The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.1996 and the order of sentence dated 27.11.1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Pakur in connection with Sessions Case No. 203 of 18 of 1994 of 94 holding the appellants guilty for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo RI for life.

The prosecution case as per FIR of the informant PW-9 Pran Hansda is that on 26.06.1993 at 08:00 a.m. the informant was ploughing his land and Informant’s son Ramesh Hansada was grazing cattle nearby about half a kilometer west. In the meantime, a co-villager Sheo Hansda(PW-3) came rasing halla and informed him that his son Ramesh Hansda had been assaulted by means of lathi and knife by the appellants and his son was lying unconscious on the field. Thereafter, the informant along with Sheo Hansda and other co-villagers went to the place of occurrence and found his son lying on the ground unconscious with injuries and bleeding from his nose. The informant with the help of co-villagers took his son Ramesh Hansda on a cot to the police station and lodged the First Information Report. Informant had stated in his fardbeyan that there is a land of the accused adjacent to the land of the informant and on the upper level the accused had set up a ridge on their land in order to store water in the same. On account of rains in the preceding night, the ridge had washed away and the accused alleged that Ramesh had broken the ridge.

On the basis of said FIR of the informant Pakuria PS case no. 27/1993 dated 26.6.1993 was registered against the appellants under sections 307/324/302/34 of IPC. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted and cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge was framed against the appellants under section 302/34 of IPC and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial, appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal.

In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined altogether ten witnesses out of whom PW-9 Pran Hansda is the informant of the case and father of the deceased; PW-2 is Raghunath Hansda, who is the brother of the deceased, PW-3 is Sheo Hansda; PW-1 is Dr. Krishna Kumar ; PW 4 is hearsay witness ; PW-5, PW-6, PW-7 and PW-8, all are tendered witness and PW-11 is a formal witness and he has proved the formal FIR and Inquest Report which were marked as Ext.- 2 and Ext. - 3 respectively.

PW 9 Pran Hansda is the informant of the case and father of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence, he was at some distance from place of occurrence and his son Ramesh was grazing cattle. In the meantime Sheo Hansda (PW-3) came and informed him that his son Ramesh Hansda was being assaulted by Mangal, Sundar, Chunda , Kuve Hansda with lathi. On this Informant went to the place of occurrence and saw Ramesh lying on ground in unconscious state. Thereafter, his son was taken to police station on the cot.

PW-2 Raghunath Hansda is brother of the deceased. He has stated in his evidence on the day of occurrence he was grazing ox and his deceased brother Ramesh was grazing cows. He further stated that accused persons assaulted his brother with lathi as a result of which he died.

PW-3 Sheo Hansda has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 7-8 a.m in the morning he was working in his field and several other persons including the deceased Ramesh were grazing their cattle in the nearby field. In the meantime, four person including the appellants came to the place of occurrence armed with lathi and knife and assaulted Ramesh with lathi chasing him. As a result, Ramesh sustained injuries and fell down. PW 3 further stated that he had restrained the accused persons but they did not listen and then he fled away out of fear. He informed the villagers and when villagers went to the place of occurrence, accused had fled away and Ramesh was found injured in the field. Ramesh was taken to police station and later on he came to know that Ramesh died due to the said injuries. In his cross examination, PW 3 stated that at the time of occurrence he was working in his field and the place of occurrence was at 150 yard from his field. Informant further stated that accused Sunder and Chunda were armed with lathi and Mangal was armed with knife. Sunder assaulted the deceased on his leg, head and back and deceased fell down due to assault on his leg.

PW-1 is Dr. Krishna Kumar and he had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Ramesh Hansda. Doctor had found following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:-

“(i) About 3” stitched wound with dark red clot over left temporal region.

(ii) A stitched wound 2½” with dark red clot over mid-scalp lateral to first wound i.e. injury no.1.

(iii) Stitched wound 1½” with dark red clot over left temporal region extending towards occipital region.

(iv) On dissection of scalp sub-dural haematoma of dark brown colour over occipital and left temporal region”

(v) One stitched wound 1” with dark red clot over posterio-lateral aspect of lower third of left upper arm.

(vi) A punctured wound with dark red blood clot 2 cms over left leg on antero medial aspect on upper third.

(vii) left ear having 1 ½” stitched wound ”.

The doctor opined that cause of death was due to injury Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 (head injury) leading to hemorrhage and shock caused by hard and blunt object may be lathi. Doctor has proved the postmortem report which was marked as Ext.-1.

Arguments on behalf of the appellants:

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that on the contradictory evidence of PW-2 and PW-3, the trial Court had convicted the appellants, irrespective of evidence of PW-9 (informant), which is also not consistent with the evidence of PW-2 and PW3. Learned counsel for appellants further submitted that PW-9 in para 1 had stated that on the information given by PW-3, he reached at the spot and PW-3 had also told him that the accused persons had assaulted his son Ramesh and on reaching the place of occurrence he found his son fallen in an unconscious state. He brought his son to the police station on a cot and gave his statement to the police. Whereas PW-3 had stated that many persons were grazing their cattle and the accused persons came being armed with lathi and knife and by chasing the deceased assaulted him with lathi and thereafter out of fear PW-3 fled away. Subsequently, the deceased was brought to the police station and he heard later on that Ramesh had died. PW.-3 had also stated that choukidar was not informed about the occurrence and he had also not gone to the police station. Thus the statement made in the FIR by the informant PW-9 and the evidence of PW-3 are contradictory to each other with regard to reporting about the occurrence to the police. PW-3 in para 3 has also stated that the appellant no.2 was armed with lathi and his father Chunda Hansda was also armed with lathi and appellant no.1 was armed with knife and accused Kuber Hansda was at some distance from the place of occurrence. Appellant no.2 had assaulted the deceased on his leg, head and back of the deceased. PW.-3 has also stated that he cannot say about numbers of assault given by lathi. From the evidence of PW-3 it also transpires that neither PW-3 had disclosed anything about the occurrence to the informant PW-9 nor PW-3 had gone to police station and as such the evidence of PW-3 does not appear to be trustworthy. Learned counsel for the appellants further stated that PW-2 Raghunath Hansda has stated that he had also seen the occurrence while he was grazing cattle along with the deceased and had seen that conjointly all the accused persons assaulted to his elder brother (deceased) who succumbed to injury. PW-2 has also stated that the police had seized blood stained clothes of the deceased but there is no forensics report. Learned counsel further submitted that occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution and at the same time the I.O. of the case has also not been examined causing serious prejudice to the defence of the appellant since there are major contradiction in the evidence of material witnesses i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 who are said to be eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that the doctor who gave first aid to the deceased and had stitched the wounds of the deceased was not examined and his report was not exhibited. There are no materials to show that there was prearranged plan of the appellants and in furtherance of common intention they had committed murder of the deceased. Lastly learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appellants were in jail from very beginning and were granted bail on 30.4.1999 by Hon'ble Patna High Court after being detained in jail for about 6 years.

Arguments on behalf of the State:

Mrs. Priya Shresth, the learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal and submitted that heinous offence has been collectively committed and a person has lost his life and, hence, the appellant's conviction and sentence need to be fully sustained. She has further submitted that there are two eye-witnesses that is PW-2 and PW-3 and the ocular evidence is supported by the medical evidence of the doctor PW-1. Doctor had found as many as seven ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased and hence, appellants do not deserve to be acquitted.

Reason

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the state and also gone through the facts and evidences of the case. Both the appellants are convicted under section 302/34 IPC by the learned trial court. In this case, PW- 3 Sheo Hansda is the material witness. On going through the deposition of PW-3, I find that PW-3 has stated in his evidence that on the day of occurrence, he was working in his field and Ramesh was grazing his cattle in the nearby field. In the meantime, four accused person including the appellants came to the place of occurrence armed with lathi and knife and assaulted Ramesh with lathi, chasing him, as a result, Ramesh sustained injuries and fell down. In his cross-examination, PW- 3 stated that at the time of occurrence he was working in his field and place of occurrence is about 150 yard away from his field. PW-3 has stated that Sunder was armed with lathi and he assaulted the deceased on his leg, head and back and deceased fell down due to assault on his leg.

On going through the evidence of PW 1 Doctor, I find that doctor had found four ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased out of which injury Nos. 1, 2,3 and 4 were caused on the head of the deceased. The aforesaid head injuries are as follows:

(i) About 3” stitched wound with dark red clot over left temporal region.

(ii) A stitched wound 2½” with dark red clot over mid-scalp lateral to first wound i.e. injury no.1.

(iii) stitched wound 1½” with dark red clot over left temporal region extending towards occipital region.

(iv) On dissection of scalp sub-dural haematoma of dark brown colour over occipital and left temporal region”.

Doctor had also stated that injury no. 6 was caused over the left leg of the deceased and opined that injuries were caused by hard and blunt object may be lathi.

Hence, I find that PW- 3 Sheo Hansda is the eye witness to the assault on the deceased and PW -3 has specifically stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the assault on the deceased from a distance of about 150 yard and appellant no. 2 Sunder Hansda had assaulted the deceased on his leg and head with lathi. The ocular evidence of PW.-3 is corroborated by the medical evidence of doctor who had found seven antemortem injuries on the person of deceased, out of which injuries Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 were head injuries and injury no. 6 was leg injury. The plea of learned counsel for the appellants that appellants were prejudiced due to non- examination of the investigating officer of the case is not acceptable in view of the concrete ocular evidence PW-3 and evidence of doctor PW-1. Hence, prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant no. 2 Sunder Hansda under section 302 of IPC. So, far as conviction of appellant no.1 Mangal Hansda is concerned I find that sole eye witness of the case PW- 3 Sheo Hansda has not stated in his cross-examination about witnessing of any assault of any kind on the deceased, by appellant no.1 Mangal Hansda. Hence, appellant no.1 Mangal Hansda, is acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt.

Hence, so far as appellant no. 2 Sunder Hansda is concerned, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26.11.1996 and order of sentence 27.11.1996, passed against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-Pakur, in connection with Sessions Case No. 203 of 18 of 1994 of 94,is sustained and upheld. Bail bond of the appellant no.2 Sunder Hansda is cancelled. Appellant no.1 Mangal Hansda is acquitted of the charge by giving him benefit of doubt and he is discharged from the liability of bail bond.

Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.