Partly allowed

Kamu Kisku v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC4 Oct 2024Cr.A(DB)/598/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court examined a criminal appeal arising from a free fight over disputed land. It held that the murder conviction was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Convictions for attempted murder were set aside in favor of simple injury charges.

What did the court decide?

Conviction of appellant Kamu Kisku for murder reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder; he is released forthwith. Convictions of other appellants under Section 307 set aside and reduced to

Kamu Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶2

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence
dated 12.04.2018/18.07.2018, passed by learned 3rd
Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333
of 2012]

¶3

Kamu Kisku aged about 41 years son of Babloo Kiskoo,

¶4

Sunil Kisku aged about 31 years son of Babloo Kisku

¶5

Diwakar Kisku aged about 30 years son of Babloo Kisku

¶6

Ramdhani Soren aged about 65 years wife of Babloo Kisku.

¶7

All Residents of village-Jhiluwa, P.O. + P.S.-Sarath, .... .... …. District-Deoghar Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent

¶10

------

¶11

PRESENT

¶12

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶13

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶14

¶15

For the Appellant : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate Mr. Anurag Kashyap, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A. P.P.

¶16

------

¶17

CAV On 18/09/2024 Pronounce On 04 / 10/2024

¶18

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.

¶19

The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of

¶20

conviction and sentence of the appellants dated 12.04.2018/18.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deoghar in Session Case No.333 of 2012 arising out of

¶21

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶22

¶23

Sarath P.S. Case No.66 of 2012 (hereinafter called the impugned judgment), whereby and whereunder the appellant No.1 has been held guilty for the offence under sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment for life along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation. The appellant Nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku and Ramdhani Soren have been held guilty for the offence under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigors imprisonment of 7 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each with default stipulation.

¶24

FACTUAL MATRIX

¶25

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is based upon fardbayan of one Gobardhan Kisku recorded by A.S.I. namely Narendra Kumar of Sarath Police Station dated 10.05.2012 at about 11:00 hours at P.S.C. Sarath, stating inter alia that on 10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, while the informant was irrigating vegetables in his field, meanwhile, he received information from his nephew that Kamu Kisku, Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku are demolishing his house. The Informant rushed to his home along with his brother Ramesh Kisku(since deceased) and protested against the illegal demolition of the house, but the accused persons were armed with swords,

¶26

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018 2

¶27

farsas, lathis and dandas started assaulting and abusing them with intention to kill. It is further alleged that Kamu Kisku gave a sword blow on the head of Ramesh Kisku, who got severe head injury and was referred to RIMS, Ranchi for better treatment, where he ultimately died and other family members of the informant have also sustained injuries through deadly weapons.

¶28

On the basis of above information, FIR was registered and charge of investigation was taken by A.S.I. Narendra Kumar, Officer-in-Charge of Sarath Police Station. In course of investigation, inquest report of the deceased was prepared and dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer has interrogated the several witnesses and found sufficient evidence against the accused persons and submitted charge-sheet for the offences under sections 447, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the above named accused persons. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to court of Sessions, where S. Case No.333 of 2012 was registered and in due course came to file of Additional Sessions Judge-III, Deoghar for favour of trial and disposal.

¶29

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶30

¶31

Charges were framed against all the accused persons for the offences under sections 447, 323, 326, 307, 504 and 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

¶32

In course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses following documents were also adduced:-

¶33

Ext.1:- Fardbayan of Gobardhan Kisku recorded by ASI Narendra Kumar, Sarath Police Station.

¶34

Ext.1/1:- Statement of informant-Gobardhan Kisku recorded by S.I. A.G. Imam Khan of Bariyatu Police Station recorded on 12.05.2012 at about 12:15 hours at Ranchi.

¶35

Ext.2:- Signature of Gobardhan Kisku on inquest report.

¶36

Ext. 3 to 3/4:- Five injury reports

¶37

Ext.1/2:- Requisition and endorsement on fardbayan.

¶38

Ext.4 to 4/4:- requisition for treatment and preparation for injury report of injured persons.

¶39

5. The case of accused persons, in their statement recorded under section 313 of Cr.PC is denial from occurrence and false

¶40

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶41

¶42

implication due to land dispute. However, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence.

¶43

The learned trial court after apprising and evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record has held the appellants guilty and sentenced them as stated above.

¶44

Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Advocate, assailing the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants has vehemently argued that the trial court has miserably failed to appreciate that there are vital contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding genesis, manner and place of occurrence. The prosecution has suppressed the material fact that in the same occurrence, the appellants were also brutally assaulted and there was exchange of assault from both sides due to land dispute, which happened in a sudden manner in free fight without any pre-meditation. The prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, hence, the story projected by the prosecution witnesses is wholly unreliable and cannot be the basis for conviction of the appellants. It is further submitted that most of the witnesses examined by the prosecution are highly interested witnesses and belonging to the same family i.e. P.W. 1 Bulet Kisku(son of

¶45

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶46

¶47

the deceased), P.W. 4 Gita Muni Marandi (Wife of the informant) , P.W.5 Jiyamuni Hembrom (wife of late Ramesh Kisku) and P.W. 7 Gobardhan Kisku(the informant) and other witnesses are also related to each other. No independent villagers have been examined by prosecution to corroborate the prosecution story. The manner of occurrence as projected by the witnesses does not correspond the respective injury report of the injured persons. The learned trial court has also failed to appreciate that counter FIR was also instituted by the appellant No.1 for the offences under section 307 of Indian Penal Code against the informant Gobardhan Kisku and others with regard to the same occurrence, which has not been jointly tried with this case resulting in serious prejudice in the defence of the appellants and proper appreciation of entire facts and circumstances of the case. It is further submitted that the doctor, who has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramesh Kisku has not been examined and the prosecution has failed to prove the exact cause of death of the deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased were found to be abrasions and lacerations, which were simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance and not sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death, which also suggests

¶48

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶49

¶50

that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased. Other injured persons have also sustained simple injuries and there is no repetition of blow, which clearly indicates that there was no intention to commit murder of the injured persons so as to attract the offence under section 307 of Indian Penal Code.

¶51

In the alternative, it is contended that in any view of the matter, the offence of murder is not constituted in this case rather the genesis and manner of occurrence and also in view of the injury sustained by the deceased, the offence falls under Section 304 part-II of the Indian Penal Code and the injuries caused to other injured persons falls under sections 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The quantum of the sentence awarded against the appellants is also disproportionate to their guilt. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence is liable to be set aside.

¶52

Per contra , learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State controverting the aforesaid points of argument raised on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly considered over all evidences available on record and arrived at right conclusion. The prosecution has proved the charges against the appellants

¶53

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶54

¶55

beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellants calling for any interference. There is no merit in this appeal, which is fit to be dismissed.

¶56

For better appreciation of contentions raised on behalf of the respective parties and to arrive at right conclusion, it is apposite to deal with the testimony of the ocular witnesses, particularly, the injured persons of this case.

¶57

P.W.7, Gobardhan Kisku: is the informant-cum-injured.

¶58

According to his evidence on 10.05.2012 at about 9:00 AM, he was irrigating his vegetable filed, meanwhile, his nephew came and informed that the accused persons Diwakar Kisku, Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren and others are demolishing their house. He suddenly rushed towards his home and saw the accused persons were demolishing the wall of the house and abusing to his family members. Upon protest, Kamu Kisku gave a sword blow. with intention to kill his father namely Ramesh Kisku. Diwakar Kisku assaulted by farsa to this witness on head causing severe injuries. Sunil Kisku gave farsa blows on head to Prakash Kisku and Ramdhani Soren gave lathi blows on head of Gita Muni Marandi. Ramdhani Soren also gave lathi blows on leg to Jiyamuni Hembrom. All

¶59

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶60

¶61

the injured persons were brought to Sarath hospital from where they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where during the course of treatment, he died. He has further proved that his fardbayan was recorded by the ASI Narendra Kumar at Sarath Hospital. His statement was also recorded at RIMS, Ranchi by the local police and inquest report of the deceased was also prepared in his presence.

¶62

In his cross-examination, this witness admits that in the Sarath Hospital, Kamu Kisku and Sunil Kisku were also under treatment along with this witness and other injured persons but he has not seen any injury caused to Kamu Kisku and Sunil Kisku and he also admits that Kamu Kisku has also lodged a case against this witness and his family members namely Prakash Kisku, Chabbilal Kisku and the deceased Ramesh Kisku. He has denied the suggestion of defence that this witness and his family members have attacked on the accused persons and in order to save themselves from the cross-case, this false case has been instituted.

¶63

P.W.4 Gita Muni Marandi: (wife of the informant-cum-injured witness). According to her evidence, she came out from the house hearing hullah and saw that Kamu Kisku, Diwakar

¶64

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶65

¶66

Kisku, Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren were demolishing her house and abusing her family members. Upon protest, Kamu Kisku gave sword blow to Ramesh Kisku on head; Gobardhan Kisku was assaulted by farsa by Diwkar Kisku on head, Prakash Kisku was also assaulted on head with spade by Sunil Kisku, Ramdhani Soren assaulted with lathi to Jiyamuni Hembrom on her legs; Diwkar Kisku assaulted this witness with lathi on head. All the injured persons were brought to the Sarath Hospital and Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where he died during the course of treatment.

¶67

In her cross-examination, she admits that a cross-case has been lodged by Kamu Kisku for the occurrence of same day against her husband and other family members. The incident took place due to dispute of land between the parties.

¶68

P.W.5 Jiya Muni Hembrom : who happens to be wife of the deceased Ramesh Kisku, has also stated in the same manner as P.W.4 Gita Muni Marandi and stated that she was assaulted on her right leg with lathi blow given by Ramdhani Soren. All the injured persons were brought to the Sarath Hospital and thereafter Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi, where he died.

¶69

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶70

¶71

In her cross-examination, she admits that the accused persons are her gotiya (agnates) and there is land dispute between the parties; the disputed land belongs to the informant party and they have also constructed a house over which the accused persons are raising false claim. She has also admitted that a cross-case has been lodged by the accused persons for the same day occurrence against her and other family members.

¶72

P.W. 10 Prakash Kisku : is another injured witness. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence at 9:00 AM, all the accused persons namely Kamu Kisku, Diwakar Kisku, Sunil Kiski and Ramdhani Soren were demolishing his house. At that time, no one was present and all family members had gone to the vegetable field for the purpose of irrigation. This witness informed all the family members at the field who returned to home and an altercation took place. Meanwhile, Ramesh Kisku was assaulted by sword on his head by Kamu Kisku. Gobardhan Kisku was also assaulted by farsa on his head and Sunil Kisku gave a sword blow on the head of this witness. Sunil Kisku and Ramdhani Soren have also assaulted to Jiyamuni Hembrom and Gitamuni Hembrom by pelting stones and bricks. All the injured persons were brought to

¶73

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶74

¶75

PSC, Sarath, thereafter sent to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar and Ramesh Kisku was referred to RIMS, Ranchi where he died in course of treatment.

¶76

In cross-examination, this witness admits that the accused persons have also lodged a case against the informant party for the occurrence of same day, he also admits that police have not recorded his statement during investigation and he has given evidence for the first time in the court.

¶77

P.W. 8 Dr. Suresh Mahto: is the medical officer of PSC, Sarath,

¶78

who has examined all the injured persons of this case.

¶79

According to this witness, on 10.03.2012 at about 11:15 AM, he

¶80

examined the injured Gobardhan Kisku and found following injuries on his person:

¶81

Injuries

¶82

(i) Lacerated wound on frontal region left side.

¶83

(ii) Nature of the wound simple nature, the age of injury within three hours.

¶84

Gita Muni Marandi was examined by me on same day and

¶85

found : -

¶86

(i) Lacerated wound found on occipital reason 1/2 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm

¶87

Nature of the wound is simple.

¶88

Nature of weapon - Heard and blunt Age of wound three hours.

¶89

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶90

¶91

I examined on the same day injured Prakash Kisku, S/o

¶92

Chhabilal Kisku found following injuries:

¶93

(i) Lacerated wound on frontal reason sized 2x1 /2x1/4 cm

¶94

Nature of the wound simple. Nature of weapon - Heard and blunt

¶95

Age of Injury within three hours.

¶96

I examined on the same day the injured Ramesh Kisku, S/o

¶97

Haradhan Kisku and found following injuries:

¶98

(i) Incised wound in mid of the frontal reason size 3 x 1/2 x 1/4 cm

¶99

(ii) Incised wound on pretrial reason left side size 1x1/2 x ¼ cm

¶100

Present is unconscious and refereed to Sadar Hospital, Deoghar.

¶101

Opinion: reserved for Sadar Hospital report. Nature weapon sharp cut head

¶102

Age of wound within three hours.

¶103

I examined same day Jeeya Muni Hembram, W/o Ramesh

¶104

Kisku and found following injuries:

¶105

(i) Swelling on left leg posteriors accepet size 4x3 cm Nature of Injuries simple nature of weapon heard and blunt.

¶106

Age of Injuries - 3 hours

¶107

Above five injury reports are marked Ex.3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 and 3/4 respectively.

¶108

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶109

¶110

P.W.11 Dr. Tulsi Mahto : is a Professor-cum-HOD of Forensic

¶111

Medicine and Toxicology of RIMS, Ranchi and has proved the autopsy conducted by Dr. Sima Kumari on the dead body of the deceased Ramesh Kisku on 12.05.2012 at about 15:30 hours.

¶112

As per post-mortem report of the deceased following was found:-

¶113

The body was of average built. Rigors mortis were present all over the body. Abdomen slightly distended. Head was bandaged.

¶114

External Finding

¶115

(i) 3 cm x 2cm left side of forehead

¶116

(ii) 2 cm x 2 cm left cheek.

¶117

(iii) 3cm x 2 cm back of left forearm

¶118

(iv) 6 cm x 2 cm left scapular region

¶119

(v) 4 cm x 3 cm back of left chest middle part.

¶120

Lacerated wounds

¶121

(i) 3 cm x ½ cm into bone deep, left parietal region

¶122

of head

¶123

(ii) 5 cm x ½ cm into bone deep, left parietal region

¶124

of the head

¶125

Lacerated wounds stitched

¶126

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶127

¶128

(i) 6 cm x ½ cm into bone deep with two stitches

¶129

over left temporo parietal region of head.

¶130

Internal findings

¶131

(i) Defuse contusion over left temporo parietal and occipital region.

¶132

(ii) There is crack fracture 16 cm long over left temporo parietal bone

¶133

(iii) There is defuse contusion of brain with presence of subdural blood and blood clot on both sides of brain more on right sides.

¶134

Opinion

¶135

Above noted injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by sharp and heavy substance( heavy sharp cutting weapon).

¶136

The death is due to brain injuries.

¶137

Time since death 3 to 18 hours from the time of post-mortem examination.

¶138

Rest of organs were normal and congested. Left

¶139

side of the heart was empty and right side contained little blood. Stomach contained watery fluid 100 cc. Small intestine contained gas. Large intestine contained gas and fecal matter.

¶140

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶141

¶142

Urinary bladder was empty. No disease or deformities could be detected.

¶143

He has proved the handwriting and signature of Dr. Sima Kumari on the post-mortem report which has been counter signed by Dr. C.S. Prasad, the then Head of Department, FMT, RIMS, Ranchi.

¶144

18. P.W.1 Bullet Kisku is the son of Ramesh Kisku, P.W. 2 Pradhan Kisku, P.W.3 Rasodi Marandi and P.W. 6 Basu Kisku are local villagers and neighbors of the informant party respectively, who have also corroborated the testimony of the injured witnesses as regards the occurrence of assault committed by the accused persons against the injured witnesses.

¶145

19. P.W.9, S.I. Narendra Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this case. According to the evidence of this witness, after assuming the charge of investigation, he visited the place of occurrence, which is a mud-made room roofed by phus (leaves and straw) fitted with wooden door. He has also mentioned the boundary of the place of occurrence but stated nothing about demolition of any wall or as regards the ownership of the disputed place where the occurrence took place.

¶146

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶147

¶148

He has recorded the statement of the witnesses and injured persons and also issued requisition slips for their treatment and obtained their injury reports. Ramesh Kisku was referred for better treatment to RIMS, Ranchi, where he died during treatment and he obtained post-mortem report of the deceased. After finding sufficient evidence against the accused persons, he submitted charge-sheet for the offences under sections 447, 323, 324, 326, 307, 504, 302 r/w Section 34 Indian Penal Code against the accused persons.

¶149

In cross-examination, this witness admits that for the same day occurrence, accused Kamu Kisku has also lodged an FIR against the informant and injured persons of this case and he has investigated that case also. He further admits that accused Kamu Kisku was also injured, who was sent to hospital for treatment. He did not find any mark of blood at the place of occurrence and he has also not recorded the statement of neighboring inhabitants of the place of occurrence due to their non-availability.

¶150

We have given thoughtful consideration to the testimony of the injured witnesses discussed at length as above. The injury reports of other injured persons as well as post-mortem report of the deceased. Admittedly, it is a case of free fight between

¶151

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶152

¶153

the parties and for the same occurrence, the informant party of this case has also been made accused and were charged for the offences under sections 323, 324, 326, 307, 447 r/w section 34 of IPC in S.T. Case No.111 of 2013 and have been held guilty and sentenced for the offences under sections 323 and 324 of IPC. Against their conviction and sentence, they have preferred the appeal being Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No.174 of 2021, which has also been heard and decided together, however a separate judgment is being delivered. The same Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation of both the cases.

¶154

Learned senior counsel for the appellants has laid much emphasis on the conviction of the appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku for the offence under section 302 of IPC and pointed out that it is a case of free fight. Therefore, Exception No.4 appended to section 300 of IPC is applicable in this case and the offence comes under culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under part-II of section 304 of IPC.

¶155

For better appreciation of the above arguments, relevant provision is extracted here:-

¶156

Section 300: Murder:

¶157

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶158

¶159

“Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—

¶160

(Secondly)— If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or—

¶161

(Thirdly)— If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—

¶162

(Fourthly)— If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

¶163

Exception 4 .— Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶164

Explanation: — It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

¶165

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶166

¶167

In the instant case, the occurrence took place in a sudden manner while the accused persons were constructing a mudmade room over the disputed land. It is quite obvious that there is exchange of assault from both side and both parties have sustained injuries through use of sword and farsa etc. The post-mortem report of the deceased does not find mention as to which injury was responsible to cause death and whether the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. It is also apparent that the appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku, who himself was badly injured have been attributed to cause one sword blow given to

¶168

the deceased and there is no repetition of any blow on his part. It is settled law that in order to invoke the exception 4 following requirements must be satisfied:-

¶169

(i) It was a sudden fight

¶170

(ii) There was no premeditation

¶171

(iii) The act was done in heat of passion and

¶172

(iv) The assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶173

The cause of provocation is not relevant nor who offer

¶174

the provocation or started the assault is relevant. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not decisive factor

¶175

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶176

¶177

but what is import is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in cruel manner.

¶178

In the instant case, the appellant-Kamu Kisku has been attributed to cause a single sword blow on head of the deceased in a sudden fight under the heat of passion. It is also revealed from the evidence that the accused has not taken any undue advantage from the incident or acted in an unusual or cruel manner. The appellant no.1-Kamu Kisku alone has been held guilty for the offence under section 302 of IPC in this case and the rest of the accused persons have not been held responsible for murder even with the aid of section 34 of IPC rather they have been separately convicted in accordance with their mode of participation in crime for the offence under section 307 of IPC.

¶179

In the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are of the firm view that this case is squarely covered by Exception-4 appended to section 300 of Indian Penal Code and the guilt of the appellant no.1 falls under culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under part-II of section 304 of IPC.

¶180

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶181

¶182

We have further considered the applicability of offence under section 307 of IPC against the appellant Nos.2 to 4, who have faced trial for the offence under sections 447, 323, 324, 307, 504 r/w section 34 of IPC but have been convicted and sentenced for the offence under section 307 of IPC. The learned trial court has nowhere discussed in the entire judgment as to how offence under section 307 of IPC has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts against these appellants. P.W. 7 Gobardhan Kisku was assaulted with farsa blow given by Diwakar Kisku(appellant no.3) causing head injuries to him, appellant no.2 Sunil Kisku also gave farsa blows on the head of Prakash Kisku and appellant no.4, Ramdhani Soren gave lathi blows on Gita Muni Marandi on her head and had also gave lathi blows on the legs to Jiyamuni Hembrom and in this connection, injured witnesses have clearly deposed that they have sustained injury, which are found simple in nature caused by hard and blunt substance as opined by P.W.8 Dr. Suresh Mahto. The manner of assault and nature of injuries sustained by these injured persons does not appear to have been caused under the circumstances to attract the intention or knowledge as required for commission of offence under section 307 of IPC rather we find that only simple injuries have been caused to

¶183

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶184

¶185

these injured persons attracting the offences under sections 323 and 324 of IPC against the appellant Nos.2-4.

¶186

In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we find substance in this appeal, therefore, conviction and sentence of appellant no.1 for the offence under section 302 of IPC is altered and modified to the offence under section 304 part-II of IPC. The appellant no.1 Kamu Kisku is under judicial custody since the very inception and has sustained imprisonment for more than 10 years. Therefore, sentence of rigor imprisonment for life awarded to him is reduced to the sentence of imprisonment already undergone. Accordingly, the appellant no.1 is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶187

So far as appellant nos.2 to 4 namely Sunil Kisku, Diwakar Kisku and Ramdhani Soren are concerned, their conviction for the offence under section 307 of IPC is set aside and reduced to sections 323 and 324 of IPC.

¶188

It appears that it was the first offence of the appellant nos.2-4 and there is no previous conviction for any other offence. Therefore, having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence committed by these appellants, their age, character and antecedents, we deem it fit expedient in the ends of justice to extend the benefit of section 4 of Probation of

¶189

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶190

¶191

Offenders Act, 1958. Accordingly, the appellant nos.2-4 are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within 8 weeks and they shall be duly extended the benefit of Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act by the concerned trial court after obtaining report from District Probation Officer and with such terms and conditions as may be deemed fit by learned trial court. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of subject to above observations.

¶192

Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of accordingly.

¶193

Let the copy of this judgment along with record of trial court

¶194

be sent back for information and needful.

¶195

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶196

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶197

Jharkhand High Court, at Ranchi Date: 4 /10/2024 Pappu/- A.F.R.

¶198

Cr.A(D.B.) No.598 of 2018

¶199

Kamu Kisku v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamu Kisku v. the 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

Chandan Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ramrai Surin Vs the State of Jharkhand

Madhuri Vs Madan Lal

Jahangir Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jamil Ansari Vs The State Of Jharkhand

Gobardhan Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand