Rajendra Rai vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the Parties.

The appellant has been charged and convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

five years with a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months.

Poraiyahat P.S. Case No.136 of 2003 has been registered on the information given by the informant at about 8.00 p.m on 29.08.2003. As per the

F.I.R, husband of the deceased namely Gyandeo Rai went to collect lime (chuna) to the house of Purli Devi (P.W.-3). The appellant/accused had

given a lathi blow on his head. The deceased fell down and there was bleeding but no medical help could be extended to the deceased and due to

excessive blooding, he succumbed to the injury.

F.I.R has been registred on 30.08.2003 at 13.30 hours. On compeltion of investigation, the appellant has been charge-sheeted under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code. The cognizance has been taken and the case committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter charge has been framed under

Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C has claimed to be innocent, accordingly trial

has commenced and he has been convicted under Section 304 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for five years. He has remained in custody for about

two years and seven months.

To substantiate the prosecution story altogether seven witnesses have been examined.

P.W.-1, Dr. Narendra Kumar, who has conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has found following injury:-

(i) Lacerated would 2â€​x1â€​ into the cranial cavity over the left frontal are of the scalp with fracture of the left frontal bone.

(ii) Abrasion 2â€​x1â€​ over front of the left leg (middle).

(iii) Abrasion 1â€​x1â€​ over the front of the left leg (lower part).

He has further stated that injury no.-1 was grievous while other injuries were simple in nature.

P.W.-2, Dinesh Rai, is an independent witness but he has been declared hostile.

P.W.-3, Purli Devi, has testified that when he went inside her house for collecting lime (chuna), she heard the sound of scuffle. When she came out,

she saw the lathi blow given to the deceased by the appellant, due to which he fell down and subsequently in the night, he died.

P.W.-4, Chandra Mohan Rai, has testified that he has reached at the place of occurrence, on hearing shouting, he saw the deceased Gyandeo on the

ground and the blood was oozing from his head.

P.W.-5, Bengiya Devi, is the informant and wife of the deceased. She has supported the story as disclosed in the F.I.R.

P.W.-6, is the Investigating Officer, has testified that he has received information from the Choukidar. Accordingly he reached at place of occurrence

and after taking fardbeyan, F.I.R has been registered and the case has been investigated. No seizure list has been prepared.

P.W.-7, Sabita Kumari, daughter of the deceased, has testified that on shouting she reached at the place of occurrence and saw the appellant

assaulting her father with lathi blow.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there is material contradiction in the testimonies of the witnesses. From bare perusal of their

testimonies it is clear that no body has seen the occurrance. All reached at the place of occurrence after incident. Further the cause of death has been

disclosed in the medical opinion. Rather the cause of death is not providing medical treatment to the deceased. Further there are three injuries, one at

head and two at legs. The gravity of head injury has not been proved by the Doctor. Considering the above factual matrix of the present case, the

appellant may either be discharged from the charge or sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone i.e., two years seven months.

Per contra, learned APP has opposed the prayer. She has submitted that there is an injury on the head and this factum has been supported by the

eye witnesses. Cause of death is head injury caused by the lathi blow.

Heard both the parties. From perusal of the testimonies of the witnesses, it appears that the appellant has given lathi blow one at head and two at

legs. The cause of death has not been disclosed by the Doctor. The gravity of the head injury has not been disclosed. The incident is of the year 2003

and the trial has concluded in the year 2006. The appeal is being heard in the year 2019. Considering the entire material available on record, the

conviction of the appellant under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code is hereby, sustained but the sentence is reduced to the period already

undergone i.e., two year seven months. If the fine amount has not been deposited then, lower court is directed to take coercive steps against the

appellant for deposit of the fine amount. As the appellant is already on bail accordingly he is discharged from the liabiliy of his respective bail-bond.