RANJIT MANDAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed by the solitary appellant, arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 17.12.1990 by which the appellant was held guilty of committing offences under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was heard on sentence on 18.12.1990 by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhagalpur, who had delivered the judgment impugned herein in Sessions Case No. 357 of 1987/ T. R. No. 45 of 1990 and was directed by the order of sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life as also for 10 years respectively after having been found guilty of committing offences under sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentenced were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE incident had taken place on 29.10.1986 at about 12.30 P.M. It appears from the evidence that this appellant Ranjit Mandal and P. W. 2 Sudama Devi were descendants of a common stock and that after partition, the joint family house had been divided into two parts by raising a wall in between the portions of the appellant and P. W. 2. The appellant was residing in the eastern part of the house, whereas, the informant (P.W. 2) was residing in western part of the house. There was a common fore -court (Sahan) in front of the house. It appears that on account of sharing two portions of the same house, parties were often used to pick up quarrel on very small matters so much so that on the 29th of October, 1986, the lady inmates of the family of the appellant, i.e., his mother and wife had started quarrelling with P.W. 2 Sudama Devi for drying up the wet cloths. It was alleged that this appellant Ranjit Mandal came from the market side and finding that P.W. 2 was quarrelling with his mother and wife rushed into his house stating that he would kill all family members of P.W. 2 and again rushed out of it with a sword. No sooner appellant Ranjit Mandal had exited from his house, he dealt a blow with sword on the head of P.W. 2, who also attempted to ward it off but was hit on her head and the palm of her left hand. P. W. 1 Rammi Devi, who was the daughter -in -law of P.W. 2 Sudama Devi seeing her mother -in -law being assaulted with sword by the appellant picked up her son Ghutush Mandal and ran in order to saving herself as also her little son from being assaulted, but was chased down by the appellant towards west and was ultimately assaulted by him, the first blow falling on her little son, who fell down from the lap of his mother, while the second blow fell upon P.W. 1 Rammi Devi. Both P.Ws. 1 and 2 lost their consciousness with the little child Ghutush and were rushed to Sadar Hospital, Bhagalpur where fardbeyan of P.W. 2 was recorded by P.W. 7 A.S.I., Jawahar Lal Singh.

(3.) THERE does not appear any clear defence set up by the appellant. What appears was that he was attempting to suggest to the Court as if the child could have fallen from the lap of his mother on some sharp cutting weapon and probably he had received the fatal injury. There is no direct suggestion to the above effect, but what we could find out from the cross -examination of some of the witnesses and specifically from the cross -examination of P.W. 4 Dr. Nagendra Narain Bhagat that this attempt was made by the defence. A categorical question was put to P.W. 4 Dr. Bhagat as to whether the injury of the description which was noted by P.W. 4 while conducting autopsy on the dead body of Ghutush could be caused by fall of the child on a scythe. The doctor was very categorically denying the suggestion by stating that it was not possible. So have we discerned the defence of the appellant.