BHANJA ALIAS BHAJA MAJHI AND ANR. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two accused -Appellants Bhanja Majhi and Binod Majhi were convicted of murder of Basudeb Hemram Karji. The facts, so far as material for the purpose of this appeal, are these: The Appellant Binod Majhi has a daughter named Sumi Bewa who is the step mother of Appellant Bhanja. Sumi was a widow. She and her step son the accused -Appellant Bhanja were residing in the house of the accused -Appellant Binod. It is said that Appellant Binod had transferred all his landed properties jointly in favour of Sumi and Bhanja. Thereafter Sumi is said to have fallen in love with the deceased Basudeb. According to the prosecution case, the motive for murdering Basudeb was that the accused -Appellants apprehended that if Sumi married Basudeb, the properties would be lost, and hence they bore a grudge against Basudeb. On March 13, 1962 in the evening at about 7 -30 p.m. the accused -Appellants found the deceased Basudeb in the company of Sumi. They assaulted him with lathis near the wicket gate of P.W. 4 Dibakar Hansda who is an eye -witness to the occurrence. The other eye -witness was P.W. 5 Ram Chandra Hemram. The accused -Appellants are said to have run away to their house with the lathis in their hands as soon as P.Ws. 4 and 5 appeared on the scene of occurrence. P.W. 13 is a post occurrence witness who saw while the accused -Appellants were running away. The first information report was filed by P.W. 1 Ram Chandra a nephew of the deceased) on March 14,1962 at 11 -30 a.m. On the same date at 3 p.m. both the accused -Appellants were arrested. After police investigation in due course the accused Appellants were committed and sent up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge. They both were convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) IN view of the direct testimony of the two eye -witnesses P.Ws.4 and 5 there can be no doubt about the accused -Appellants having murdered the deceased in the circumstances hereinbefore stated. P.W. 4 had seen the accused -Appellant Bhanja dealing blows on the deceased with the lathi M.O. II. When the witness reached the spot, accused -Appellant Bhanja ran away and then the accused -Appellant Binod began to deal blows on the deceased. Accused -Appellant Binod dealt two blows with the lathi. His evidence was corroborated by P.W. 5, the other eye -witness, in all material particulars. The post occurrence witness P.W. 13, who is the wife of P.W. 4, said that she had seen the accused persons going away one after another at a distance of about 50 cubits from the wicket, gate where the incident had taken place. She also saw P.W. 5 standing near the deceased who was lying injured near the wicket -gate where the incident took place. The witness also said that the deceased had bleeding injuries on his head and he was unable to speak. The evidence of these witnesses had not been shaken in cross -examination.

(3.) IN the present case, as per post mortem report, there are two head injuries, one on the left side of the forehead and the other on the left temple region. The third injury is on the spine. The two remaining injuries are one on the forearm and the other on the left cheek above the left angle of the jaw. The injuries were intended to be on the parts of the body where the lathi strokes fell. As mentioned above there are two head injuries. It was for the defence to establish that the accused -Appellants never intended to give strokes on the head. Indeed the intention is to be gathered from the circumstances. In the present case the normal inference is that the accused -Appellants intended to strike the deceased on the head. The head injuries were by themselves sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No evidence or explanation was given about why the Appellants struck the deceased on the head with a wooden lathi (M.O. II) in the manner that they did. In the absence of evidence, or reasonable explanation, that the Appellants did not intend to cause the injuries or to indicate that their act was a regrettable accident and that they intended otherwise, it would be perverse to conclude that the accused -Appellants did not intend to inflict the injuries that they did. Once the intention is established, the rest is a matter for objective determination from the medical and other evidence about the nature and seriousness of the injuries. Thus the position is that whether the accused -Appellants knew of the seriousness of the injuries or intended serious consequences is neither here nor there. The question, so far as the intention is concerned, is not whether they intended to kill, or to inflict injuries of a particular degree of seriousness, but whether they intended to inflict the injuries has been proved as aforesaid the intention to cause them will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances warrant an opposite conclusion. In the present case there is no such evidence nor are there any circumstances which warrant an opposite conclusion. In fact the accused -Appellants did neither take this defence in their statement under Section 342 Code of Criminal Procedure nor did they lead evidence to explain why the accused -Appellants inflicted the said injuries in the manner that they did. We are satisfied that this is directly a case of murder under Section 300 "thirdly" of the Indian Penal Code.