Partly allowed

Tapan Mitra v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jun 2022Cr.Rev./1043/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal revision maintaining a conviction of petitioner for Section 324 IPC. Court found no intention to murder proved for Section 307 IPC, set aside that conviction, and modified sentence for Articles. Petitioner discharged from bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 307 IPC set aside; conviction under Section 324 IPC sustained with modified sentence; petitioner discharged from bail bonds.

Tapan Mitra Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶3

Cr. Revision No. 1043 of 2004

¶4

¶5

Tapan Mitra ….. …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

….. ….Opposite Party

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN

¶10

¶11

For the Petitioner :Mr. S.K.Sahay, Adv. For the Opposite Party :Mr. Jitendra Pandey, APP

¶12

04/17.06.2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

2. This revision application is directed against the judgment dated 20.09.2004 passed by the learned 3^rd Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Jamtara in Criminal Appeal No.26 of 2003/12 of 2004; whereby the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.08.2003, passed by the learned 2^nd Assistant Sessions Judge Jamtara, in S.C. No.16/99; whereby the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 324 and 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year R.I for the offence under section 324 IPC and R.I for three years for the offence under Section 307 IPC with a direction that both the sentences will run concurrently; has been affirmed and the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

¶14

3. The prosecution case in short is that on 27.5.1998 an FIR was lodged by one Gaur Mitra stating therein that at about 2:30 p.m. his son namely, Dinbandhu Mitra was assaulted by the petitioner with a Tangi (axe) on his head with an intention to kill him. Reason behind the assault is that on the alleged day of occurrence, the injured asked the abovenamed petitioner to keep his cow properly tied, so that it may not cause any hurt to his children. The abovenamed petitioner retaliated with the versions and said that his cow shall remain free and suggested the injured to keep his son carefully. An altercation took place and thereafter suddenly the petitioner inflicted a Tangi blow upon his head from behind; consequent thereto,

¶15

¶16

Dinbandhu Mitra fell down and blood started oozing out. The informant and villagers went there then the petitioner fled away.

¶17

4. Mr. S. K. Sahay, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that charge under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable and the learned trial court has committed gross error in convicting the petitioner for the offence committed under Section 307 IPC. He further submits that the petitioner as well as the informant parties were relatives and due to land dispute, the present case was registered and there was case and counter case also. Admittedly; there was an altercation between two parties but an attack without any intention to murder; conviction under Section 307 IPC cannot be sustained.

¶18

He further draws attention towards the deposition of P.W.-6, who was the doctor, and submits that the doctor himself has stated that injury no.1 was simple in nature and for injury no.2, since it was sharp cutting wound, he recommended for X-ray but the same was not done; as such the gravity of injury could not be substantiated.

¶19

He further draws attention towards the statement of I.O. and submits that the I.O. has himself stated that at the place of occurrence blood stain was not found; as such looking to the serious infirmity, conviction under Section 307 IPC is not sustainable.

¶20

So far as offence under Section 324 IPC is concerned, the sentence is only for One year and the petitioner has remained in custody 127 days; as such, he is confining his prayer only on the question of sentence as sending the petitioner back to to jail at this stage even for short period will hamper the entire family, hence leniency may be granted by modifying the sentence for the period already undergone.

¶21

5. Learned APP opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that admittedly; there was injury caused by

¶22

¶23

sharp cutting substance possibly by Tangi (Axe). Though X-ray was not done, but it cannot be said that charge under Section 307 has not been proved. However, he fairly submits that both the parties were relatives.

¶24

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgments passed by learned courts below including the LCR, it appears that an altercation took place between the two sides and suddenly the petitioner inflicted Tangi (axe) blow upon the back side of the informant’s son and when the informant and other villagers went there the petitioner fled away.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though there was altercation and fight occurred between the two parties and there was also injury committed by the petitioner by tangi, but it cannot be said that the injury was very vital in nature, hence the charge under Section 307 IPC is not proved. In this regard it is pertinent to mention here that to attract the charge under Section 307 IPC, it is necessary to see entire facts and circumstances including the number of blows administered and the force used by the assailants.

¶26

By going through the deposition of the doctor, it clearly transpires that there were two injuries; out of those, injury no.1 was simple in nature and though as per the doctor injury no.2 was grievous, however it was categorically stated that there was no repetition of blow and for injury no.2 he had also recommended for X-ray but for the reasons best known to the prosecution, the X-ray was not done.

¶27

7. After going through the depositions, it clearly transpires that admittedly; there was blow of Tangi on the back side of the head of the informant’s son. Though, there was fight and there was injury but the same was due to sudden altercation between two parties. Further, the prosecution has failed to show deposition of any PWs that there was intention to murder. It also transpires from the

¶28

¶29

record that case and counter case were being filed between two parties and both the parties are relatives to each other. 8. As such, looking to the deposition of the doctor and overall facts and circumstances of the case this Court holds that conviction under Section 307 IPC is not substantially proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and the trial court has misdirected itself in convicting the petitioner for the offence u/s 307 of IPC on mere inferences and guesswork.

¶30

Even the appellate court has failed to see these aspects that the doctor himself has stated that injury no.1 was simple in nature and for injury no.2 he recommended for X-ray but the same was not done; as such the gravity of injury could not be substantiated; more so, intention to murder has also not been proved by the prosecution.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid discussion, conviction of the petitioner u/s 307 IPC, is hereby, set aside.

¶32

9. So far as conviction under Section 324 IPC is concerned; admittedly there was fight between two parties and victim suffered injury; as such he must be punished for that offence and the trail court has rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence committed by him under Section 324 IPC and thus conviction of the petitioner u/s 324 IPC is hereby sustained.

¶33

10. So far as sentence for the conviction u/s 324 IPC is concerned; looking to the age of the petitioner and also the mental agony which he must have faced for ongoing litigation for the last 24 years and also remained in custody 127 days; no fruitful purpose would be served by sending the petitioner/convict back to prison; rather interest of justice would be sufficed if the sentence u/s 324 IPC is modified for the period already undergone. Ordered accordingly.

¶34

11. With the aforesaid observations and modification in sentence only, the instant criminal revision application is partly allowed and disposed of.

¶35

¶36

12. The petitioner shall be discharged from the liability of his bail bonds.

¶37

13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the courts below and also to the petitioner through the officerin-charge of concerned police station.

¶38

14. Let the lower court record be sent to the court concerned forthwith.

¶39

(Deepak Roshan, J.)

¶40

Fahim /-

Tapan Mitra v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Mitra v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rambilash Nayak And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhola Lal Ram Singhasan Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Gunadhar Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ganga Ram Mahli Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishun Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Sahidun Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Rambilash Nayak And Anr. Vs State of Jharkhand

Bhola Lal  Ram Singhasan Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Gunadhar Manjhi Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ganga Ram Mahli  Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand

Ram Kishun Singh Vs State of Jharkhand

Sahidun Bibi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Bhola Lal Ram Singhasan Lal Vs State of Jharkhand

Ganga Ram Mahli Ganga Mahli Vs State of Jharkhand