Ram Lagan Ram vs State of Jharkhand

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.01.2008 and order of sentence dated 17.01.2008 passed by Sri Ram Babu Gupta, Additional Judicial Commissioner, F.T.C-VIII, Ranchi in S.T. No. 359 of 2006 whereby and where under the sole appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for three months. 60% of the fine deposited shall go to Paro Devi (PW.6), wife of the deceased. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26.09.2005 at 8 O�clock morning the informant Shankar Ram had gone to attend his college and from college he returned his home at about 4 O�clock evening. He met his father Jugo Ram near Ranchi-Purulia main road and he demanded the key of the house from his father, but he replied that the key is attached with the lock, you go and take food, thereafter he went to the home and after taking food and changing his clothes, he went towards Tatisilway market in search of mathematics teacher and when he reached his house at about 4.45 O�clock evening, he saw that the wife of his uncle, namely, Ram Lagan Ram was sitting on the earth keeping the head of his father, who was lying on the earth and was sprinkling water on the face of his father and was shouting loudly to take his father to the hospital. He further alleged that at that time his mother had gone towards Tatisilway Station. On hearing Hulla of his aunty, he along with his elder father, namely, Bigo Ram rushed towards his house and took his father towards the road where he hired one Tempo and took him to Mahadevi Birla Sanetorium Hospital where the Doctor attended his father and declared him dead and thereafter they brought the dead body in a Tempo to his house. He has further alleged that in the house, his sister namely, Kajal Kumari, aged about 12 years, told him that her uncle, namely, Ram Lagan Ram under intoxication was demanding his share in land from her father, but her aunty objected to scuffle on this issue, then the accused tried to assault her aunty, but her aunty fled away and when his sister Kajal Kumari tried to stop her uncle Ram Lagan Ram then he tried to assault her also, but she escaped herself and in the meantime, his father told the accused as to why he is making noise, go away and sleep and when his father will return from the jail, he will allot his share in the land and after saying this, when his father was going towards the kitchen, his uncle Ram Lagan Ram picked up a Kudal and assaulted from its back side on the head of her father, who sustained injuries and fell down and died and thereafter her uncle Ram Lagan Ram fled away from the locality. He has further alleged that his uncle Ram Lagan Ram killed his father by assaulting from the back side of Kudal on the head of his father.

On the basis of the fardbayan of the informant, Tatisilway P.S.Case No. 39/2005 was registered under Section 302 IPC against the accused. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case committed to the Court of Sessions.

In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. PW.1 Ganesh Ram is the hearsay witness. PW.2 Karan Ram is the son of the deceased. PW.3 Kajal Kumari is the daughter of the deceased. PW.4 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhury, who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW.5 Shankar Ram is the informant of the case. PW.6 Paro Devi is the wife of the deceased. PW.7 Rabindra Prasad Singh is the I.O of the case. PW.8 Dinesh Kumar Mishra is the Judicial Magistrate, Civil Court, Ranchi who recorded the statement of PW.3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

Ext.1 is the postmortem report of the deceased. Ext.2 is the fardbayan of the informant. Ext.3 is the inquest report. Ext.4 is the formal F.I.R, Ext.5 is the seizure list. Ext.6 is the statement of PW.3 under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

PW.3 Kajal Kumari, who is an eye-witness in the case. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C and also in her evidence, she has stated that the date of occurrence is 26.09.2005 and about 6 P.M she was in her house and her father was going towards the kitchen. There was hot exchange regarding the property matter between her father and the appellant. In the meanwhile, her aunty intervened, but the appellant became aggressive and thereafter her aunty fled away. However, in the meanwhile, the appellant picked up a Kudal kept in the courtyard and gave one blow from the opposite side on the head of her father, consequently, her father sustained injuries and died. In her cross-examination, she stated that when the appellant came inside the house, he was empty handed and he picked up Kudal from his courtyard and gave one blow on the head of her father.

Statement of PW.3 recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate is corroborated by the evidence of PW.5, who is the informant of the case, although he is not an eye-witness, but soon after the occurrence, he came and learnt about the entire incident from PW.3 and gave his fardbayan, which is marked as Ext.2 and inquest report of the deceased was also prepared in his presence, which is marked as Ext.3. It appears from the deposition of PW.5 that no counsel was provided to the appellant and he himself had examined this witness with the permission of the Court. In paragraph 8 he has stated that no partition has taken place between the appellant and the deceased and there were disputes regarding the property between them. He has also admitted that his father used to take liquor regularly. These facts have also been stated by PW.6 Paro Devi, who is none but the wife of the deceased. She is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. She has stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of occurrence, she had gone to Tatisilway Station for some work and when she returned, she saw the dead body of her husband. She has admitted that the appellant always used to scuffle with her husband regarding the partition of land. This witness was also not cross-examined by the Court, rather the appellant himself had cross-examined.

PW.1 Ganesh Ram is a hearsay witness. He has stated that on hearing Hulla, he went to the place of occurrence and he along with Shankar Ram took the injured Jugo Ram to Birla Hospital where the Doctor declared him dead. In his cross-examination he has stated that he had not seen the occurrence.

Similarly, PW.2 Karan Ram is also a hearsay witness and is the son of the deceased Jugo Ram. He stated that he learnt about the occurrence from his sister Kajal Kumari.

PW.4 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Jugo Ram on 27.09.2005 and found the following injuries on his person:

Abrasions 2 x 2 cm, 2 x 2 cm, 1 x � cm and � x � cm on back of left side of chest spread over 1x9 cm

Lacerated wound : (i) �� x 4� x bone deep on left parietal region of head.

(ii) 4� x 3 cm x soft tissues on the back of left knee.

Internal injuries : There were fracture of left 3rd to 9th ribs on posterior part with laceration of left lung and presence of blood and blood clots in left chest cavity. There is laceration of spleen with presence of blood and blood clot in the abdominal cavity. There was depressed and comminuted fracture of left parietal bone 3x3 cm area with laceration of left parietal bone of brain with contusion and presence of subdunial blood and blood clots over both sides of brain.

He has opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by hard and blunt substance such as back portion of Kudal and death was due to above noted bodily injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. He has proved the postmortem report as Ext.1.

It appears that this witness was not cross-examined.

PW.7 Rabindra Prasad Singh, A.S.I is the I.O of the case. In his examination-in chief, he has stated that on 26.09.2005 he was pasted as A.S.I in Tatisilway P.S. He has proved the fardbayan recorded by Indu Shekhar Jha, S.I (Ext.2), postmortem report (Ext.3) and formal FIR Ext.4. He took over the investigation of the case and during course of investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence. In his evidence he has fully proved the place of occurrence. He has further stated that he did not seize the blood stained soil. He seized the blood-stained Kudal and prepared the seizure list, which is marked as Ext.5. He sent the dead body for postmortem and received the postmortem report. He also got the statement of Kajal Kumari recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has no knowledge as to whether the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the time of occurrence.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the evidence on record, the admitted case of the prosecution is that there is land dispute between the parties and that the appellant during exchange of hot words with the deceased picked up a Kudal lying there in the courtyard and gave one blow on the head of the deceased from the opposite side on his person and consequently he died. Medical evidence is also to that effect. Learned counsel submitted that this case thus would not come within the mischief of Section 302 IPC at least, as there was no intention to commit murder of the deceased and would at the most fall under Section 304-Part-I or Part-II IPC. The custody period of the appellant for more than 10 years, in that eventuality would serve the ends of justice.

Learned A.P.P on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, as discussed herein above, fairly conceded the said facts.

As a sequel of the aforesaid discussion, the net result is that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge of 302 IPC at least qua the appellant, he thus, deserves to be acquitted for the said charge and instead convicted for the offence of 304-Part-I IPC. We award the rigorous imprisonment of 10 years sentence upon appellant for the said diluted offence (Section 304-Part-I IPC).

Ordered accordingly.

Since the appellant has already undergone more than 10 years, the exact period turns out to be 10 years 07 months and 06 days as per the certificate provided to us by the Jail Superintendent, Birsa Munda Central Jail, Ranchi, he shall now be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

Registry is directed to intimate the jail authority concerned of the outcome of the instant appeal forthwith. The trial court shall also be informed, accordingly.