RAJA HANSDA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEPRESENTCRIMINALAPPEALHASBEENPREFERREDAGAINSTTHE judgmentandorderof convictionandsentencepassedby 4thAdditional District & Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No.30/2001. The learned Trial Court vide order dated 25th October, 2002 has punished these appellants for life imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 304/34 of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE case of prosecution is that on 2.6.2000 at 21.15 hrs (i.e. 9.15 P.M.)theinformantBittiHembrom(P.W9)gavefardbeyanat Ramgarh Hospital to police that on 2.6.2000 at 4.30 P.M. informant, her husband Girish Hansda (deceased) and her son Indray Hansda (P.W8) were in their home. At thattimeinformantbrotherinlawi.e.RajaHansda(accusedno.1)and Nandan Hansda (accused no.2) came there and took Girish Hansda to the house of Raja Hansda in order to have a talk in connection with settlement of marriage of his daughter and Girish Hansda went to the House of the accused Raja Hansda.They talk about the marriage of Girish Hansda niece and also talk about the partition of ancestor land and then they started altercation with informant husband for partition land. Thereafter at 5 P.M. informant saw that her husband was caught hold by Nandan Hansda at the door of Raja Hansda house and Raja Hansda inflicted two blows of sharp edged fasuli on Girish Hansda and after getting injured, Girish Hansda run from there to save himself but both the accused persons chased him and gave 2/3 blows of fasuli on his chest and head and injured him. Then informant raise noise (hulla) and her son Indray Hansda rushed to rescue his father. The accused Raja Hansda also inflicted further blows by fasuli on the Girish Hansda even after his fall and then accused persons fled away from there. Then informant son Indray Hansda brought his father Girish Hansda to home and thereafter with the help of villagers he was taken to Ramgarh Hospital for treatment but doctor declared him dead. The informant further alleged that the reason for occurrence took place only due to differences in partition of ancestral lands. Ten witnesses were examined by the prosecution

(3.) IT is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that the learned trialcourthasnot properlyappreciatedthefactthattherearemajor contradiction,omission and improvement in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and hence the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that so called eye witnesses of the incident in question are in fact not theeyewitnessesat alllookingto theirexaminationinchiefandcross examinationbeforethelearnedtrialcourtandthereis agreatdegreeof variation in the deposition of the so called eye witnesses which tantamount two major omission, contradiction and improvement. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is inconsistency in the prosecution witness about the number of injuries sustained by the victim such as P.W.1 is speaking about two blows at head of the deceased given by appellant no.1 whereas P.W.2 is differing in his deposition in paragraph 1 that there are five or six blows given by appellant no.1. Thus, different witnesses are narrating differently the whole incident and consequently there is major contradiction between occular evidence and medical evidence. It is further submitted that P.W.7 the doctor has stated that injuries are culpable caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon whereas thealleged weaponusedby appellantno.1 is not aheavy sharp cutting instrument at all neither this weapon has been produced before the learned trial court. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court. Hence, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted that the motive which is alleged by the prosecution is the land dispute. These two appellants are the brothers of the victim and with a view to grab the property these appellants have been falsely implicated by the informantandalternativelyit submittedby thelearnedcounselforthe appellants that assuming that the whole case is proved against appellant no.1 who has caused injury then also the benefit may be given to the appellant no.2 who has not caused any injury to the deceased. Even half a dozen eye witnesses have stated that not a single injury has been caused by appellant no.2 upon the body of the deceased, therefore, appellant no.2 should be forthwith released by the Court. It is further submitted that so far as appellant no.1 is concerned alternatively appellantno.1 may beheldguilty fortheoffencepunishable under section 304 Part II I.P.C because the whole incident has taken place because of sudden fight and only because of property dispute. This is not a pre planned action of the murder on the part of the appellant no.1 who has already . remainedin jailsincethirteenandhalfyearsand,therefore,if boththe appellants are punished for ten years R.I. then it will suffice the purpose of imposing punishment under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. It is further submitted that how this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial court and as such the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial court deserves to be quashed and set aside.