RINTU BEDIA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.3.2003 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 1214 of 2003 (T.R. No. 345 of 2002 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24.2.1999 at about 6:30 P.M. the cousin sister of the informant rushed and informed the informant that the appellant was assaulting her father. When the informant went to the house of his uncle to save him, he saw that his uncle Futu Lal Munda was lying on the ground and the appellant was also standing near his uncle with a big stone in his hand and assaulted his uncle on his head causing blood injuries. Appellant tried to escape. But, the informant and others followed and caught him. The informant tried to take away Futu Lal Munda for treatment but in the meantime he died. It is also said in the first information report that it is not known why the appellant assaulted Futu Lal Munda (deceased).

(3.) PROSECUTION examined total 10 witnesses. P.W. 1 Jhumri Kumari is the daughter of the deceased who came and informed P.W. 2 Samira Munda, the informant. She inter -alia said that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. The appellant entered into the house of the deceased chasing a lady Kaushalya Kumari (P.W.3) and thereafter, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. She has also said that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was intoxicated. She further said that in the course of the quarrel, the appellant assaulted the deceased with stone. She further said that during the course of eating and drinking, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. She also said that the appellant had given single blow on the deceased by stone. P.W. 2 -the informant has also seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with stone. He also said that the appellant had assaulted the deceased by stone only once. P.W. 3 - Kaushalya Kumari corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2. She said that there was quarrel between her and the appellant. P.W. 4, P.W. 5 and P.W. 7 are the villagers who have supported the prosecution case, about the injuries found on the deceased and before whom the incident was narrated and who found the blood marked stone also at the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 also said that the appellant was in a drunken state. P.W. 6 and 8 have proved the seizure of blood stained stone, P.W. 9 has corroborated the version of the informant. P.W. 10 -Dr. Shambhu Sharan is the doctor who conducted the post mortem. It appears from the medical evidence that only one fatal injury on head was found. Other injuries were -abrasion at the left shoulder front, on left shoulder top, on left clavicular region, on the left cheek, on the left forehead and on left knee front. Thus it is clear that the appellant has inflicted the fatal injuries on the deceased. It also appears that he knew that such injury may cause death, but the question is whether he had intention to kill the deceased.