BAJRANGI TANTI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred initially by two appellants, namely Yodhan Tanti (original accused No.1) (appellant No.1) and Bajrangi Tanti (original accused No.3) (appellant No. 2) against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, both dated 25th May, 1991, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.4 of 1982 (159 of 1988), whereby the aforesaid appellants have been convicted under Section 302, IPC and were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Later on, appeal with respect to appellant No.1 Yodhan Tanti (original accused No.1) abated as he died during the pendency of the present appeal and therefore, now Bajrangi Tanti (original accused No.3) is the sole appellant of the present case.

(2.) PROSECUTION case in brief is that the informant, namely Bishun Tanti, who is the deceased, on being informed that the accused persons have stealthily harvested his paddy, went to inspect his fields on 4th November, 1980 and when he was returning, at about 9 p.m. on the very same day, the appellant accused, along with other co -accused, attacked him. The informant was injured and he was taken to the Meharma - State Dispensary, where his fardbayan was recorded on 4th November, 1980, at about 4 p.m. and on perusal of the same. it appears that Yodhan Tanti original accused No. 1 had inflicted injuries on the right hand finger and left shoulder of the informant by gadasa and thereafter. Bajrangi Tanti (original accused No.3), i.e. the sole remaining appellant of the present appeal, inflicted injuries by sword. It is also narrated in the FIR that as the informant fell down, rest of the accused persons, including Bajrarigi Tanti, i.e. the sole remaining appellant of this case, inflicted injuries on the person of the informant. On perusal of the FIR, it appears that sons of the informant, namely Lalan Tanti (PW 2) as well as Baban Tanti (PW 7) and his nephew Chulhai Tanti (PW 5), have allegedly sustained injuries at the hands of appellant accused and other co -accused. The informant, after initially being treated by Dr. Bal Govind Prasad Sinha (PW 9) at Meharma State Dispensary, was referred to Bhagalpur Medical Hospital, where he was admitted and remained under treatment for several days. There was infection in his wounds and he expired after few days in the same hospital. Post -mortem was conducted on 18th November, 1980 by Dr. S.K. Rai Chowdhary (PW 10).

(3.) WE have heard the counsel appearing on behalf of the sole remaining appellant, who has vehemently submitted that learned trial Court, while passing the judgment and order of conviction and sentence has not properly appreciated the major omissions. contradictions and improvements made by the prosecution witnesses, hence, the same deserve to be set aside. It is also vehemently submitted by the counsel for the appellant that as per First Information Report (Ext. 1), Bajrangi Tanti (sole appellant of the present case), has inflicted sword injuries upon the deceased, but there are no injuries, as per the medical evidence given by Dr. S.K. Rai Chowdhary (PW 10) (who conducted post - mortem examination on the body of the deceased), caused by sword. This aspect of the matter has also not been appreciated by the learned trial Court. Moreover, as per evidences of the prosecution witnesses, especially of Dr. Bal Govind Prasad Sinha (PW -9), who has examined Chulhai Tanti (PW 5), who is the injured eye -witness as per prosecution, injuries sustained by PW 5 are simple in nature and could have been caused by hard and blunt substance and thus, the very basis of the prosecution case that Bajrangi Tanti who is the sole left out appellant of the present appeal, has used sword to cause the assault is not correct at all and the so -called eye -witnesses of the prosecution, who are PW 2, PW 3 and PW 5 and PW 7 are not the eye -witnesses at all because no injury has been sustained by any of these injured eye -witnesses, which might have been caused by a sword. This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that prosecution has proved the injury of PW 5 only. No medical certificate has been brought on record about the injuries sustained by PW 2 and by PW 7. Thus, they are not injured eye -witnesses at all. Neither any doctor has been examined on this point nor any medical certificate supporting the injuries sustained by PW 2 and PW 7 have been brought on record. Moreover, there is no charge framed against the sole left out appellant regarding the injuries caused by him upon the person of injured eye -witnesses. Thus, on perusal of the evidence of PW 10, it appears that there was no injury upon the body of the deceased, which has been caused by sword. PW 10 has also stated that the injuries were not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the deceased. There was infection in the wounds. The deceased died after several days of the assault while undergoing treatment in the hospital and the Doctor (PW 10), who conducted postmortem examination on the body of the deceased, has stated categorically that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by 'gadasa' and not by sword. Thus, the present appellant, who is the sole remaining appellant of the present case has neither caused any injury upon the person of the deceased nor upon the person of any injured eye -witnesses and his case is at a far better footing than that of other accused persons who had been acquitted according the benefit of doubt. In fact, prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellant, namely Bajrangi Tanti (original accused No.3) has accused the murder of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and hence the judgment and order of conviction of the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.