Ramka Murmu vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2003 passed by Shri P.K. Sinha, Sessions

Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No.84 of 2002, whereby the appellant had been convicted under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence had been passed for

the charge under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.

Borio P.S. Case no.83 of 2002 (G.R. Case No.184 of 2002) had been registered on fardbeyan of the victim namely Sanjhala Hansda (P.W.-1) on

07.06.2002. The story as disclosed in the fardbeyan is that the informant was sleeping in the night on 06.06.2002 in the verandah. At 12.30 a.m., the

appellant-Ramka Murmu (neighbour of the informant) came and pierced an arrow in his stomach causing grievous injury to him. On being raised

alarm, the accused ran away. On hearing alarm Smt. Konta Soren (P.W.-2), Shyamlal Marandi (P.W.-9) and others arrived at the place of incident.

The reason for incident had been disclosed as the wife of the appellant was helping to the wife of the informant and this was not liked by the

appellant. The appellant scolded his own wife to which objection had been raised by the informant and this had annoyed the appellant. This was a

reason for the incident. On the said fardbeyan, FIR had been registered under Sections 447, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

On the basis of FIR, investigation has been conducted and appellant has been charge-sheeted under Sections 447, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal

Code. Cognizance was taken and charge had been framed under sections 449, 324 & 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the

Court of Sessions, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

During the trial, altogether nine witnesses have been examined.

P.W.1-Sanjhala Hansda is the victim and informant who has supported the incident.

P.W.2-Smt. Konta Soren (sister-in-law of P.W.1) has reached to the place of incident immediately and has stated that she has been informed by

P.W.-1 that the accused has caused injury by piercing an arrow in his stomach.

P.W.3-Rupia Soren (neighbour) has also deposed on the same line as deposed by P.W.-2.

P.W.4-Sanjhali Marandi has been tendered.

P.W.5-Betka Hansda is the full brother of the informant, has also deposed the same as being witnessed to the injury and he has been informed by

P.W.1 that the injury has been caused by the accused using an arrow.

P.W.6- Dr. Jayant Kumar had examined the injury of P.W.-1. As per his testimony, the injury report has been prepared by him. As per the injury

report, there is a piercing wound in the stomach and for treatment he referred the injured to Sadar Hospital. There is no mentioning regarding the

seizure of the arrow or removal of the arrow by him.

P.W.7-Nageshwar Das (S.I.) has registered the FIR and has initiated the investigation.

P.W.8-Ramsurat Singh has simply supported the prosecution story but there is no mentioning regarding the seizure of the arrow.

P.W.9-Shyamlal Marandi is the Pradhan of the village. He has been informed by the sister of the informant and he immediately rushed to the place of

incident. He saw the injury of P.W.-1. He has been informed that the injury has been caused by the appellant using an arrow.

Thus the evidence has been brought on record whereby P.W.1 has testified that arrow blow has been given by the appellant while the informant

was sleeping. Immediately other witnesses have reached to save P.W.-1 on hearing alarm. They have been informed regarding the incident

committed by the appellant. All other witnesses are the witness of the injury and the statement of P.W.1. The doctor (P.W.-6) has also proved the

injury and as per him, the injury has been caused by piercing of an arrow. No contradiction has been extracted. The only argument has been advanced

regarding the conviction under Section 307 and 308 and further for reducing the period of sentence.

Learned APP has opposed the prayer.

In fact, no one has seen the arrow but wound has been caused by a penetrating instrument in the stomach. The depth of the injury has not been

evidenced by the medical officer. Thus the material available on record clearly proves the ingredients of 308 of the Indian Penal Code not Section 307

of the Indian Penal Code. As there is no evidence regarding intention to commit murder and further the nature of injury also does not suggest such

intention and further injury is not sufficient in ordinary course to cause death.

In view of above discussion the conviction of the appellant under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is converted into Section 308 of the Indian

Penal Code. The conviction under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. The appellant has remained in custody for more than five (05)

years and three (03) months. Further the incident is of the year 2002, the trial has been concluded in the year 2003 and the appeal is being heard in the

year 2020. Considering the entire circumstances and material available on record, the period of sentence is reduced to the period already undergone

by the appellant and he is directed to be released forthwith from jail custody, if not wanted in any other case.

Accordingly, This appeal is disposed off with the aforesaid modification of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.09.2003

passed by Shri P.K. Sinha, Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No.84 of 2002.