[S.304 IPC] Nature Of Injury Shows Intention/ Knowledge Of Assailant To Cause Death, Difficult To Ascertain It Sans Postmortem Report: Jharkhand HC
The Jharkhand High Court, in partly allowing a criminal appeal related to a 27-year-old murder case, noted that the intention of an assailant can be discerned from the nature of the injury inflicted, and without sufficient evidence of such intention, it becomes challenging to establish that the assailant had the requisite intent to cause death.Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed,...
The Jharkhand High Court, in partly allowing a criminal appeal related to a 27-year-old murder case, noted that the intention of an assailant can be discerned from the nature of the injury inflicted, and without sufficient evidence of such intention, it becomes challenging to establish that the assailant had the requisite intent to cause death.
Justice Gautam Kumar Choudhary observed, “After having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides and the materials on record, I find force in the argument advanced on behalf of the appellants that in absence of proof of postmortem examination report, when the nature of ante-mortem injury has not been proved, it is difficult to ascertain the intention or knowledge of the assailant to cause death.”
“Nature of injury discloses the intention of any assailant and in the absence of its proof, it becomes difficult to hold that assailant had the requisite intention to cause death. Furthermore, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that only one single blow was inflicted by appellant no. 2 and that too, by one pillar of a cot which was lying there,” Justice Choudhary added.
The above ruling came against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence under Section 304 Part II read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
According to the prosecution's case, on July 2, 1996, at 9 o'clock in the evening, Mohan Ravidas, the husband of the informant, and their son Prem Ravidas were resting on the veranda of their house. At that moment, the informant's brother, Jageshwar Ravidas (appellant no. 1), arrived and began hurling vulgar abuses at Mohan Ravidas, threatening to harm him. Mohan suggested resolving the dispute through a Panchayat, but Jageshwar forcibly dragged him outside. The appellant's sister-in-law, Bhoujai, handed a cot pillar to Munna Ravidas, who struck Mohan with it while the others restrained him. Mohan sustained fatal head injuries and died instantly at the scene.
Based on the written report, the police registered a FIR against Jageshwar Ravidas, Munna Ravidas, Chhotni Devi, Nirmala Devi, and Mangra Ravidas. The police investigation led to the submission of a charge sheet against Jageshwar Ravidas, Munna Ravidas, and Mangra Ravidas under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Mangra Ravidas passed away during the trial, and his name was removed from the proceedings by an order dated May 2, 2008.
Five witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution, and thereafter, the accused's statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The defense pleaded innocence.
The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 304 Part II/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5000/-.
The appellant argued that the trial court's reliance on conjecture and oral testimony alone, without due consideration of the postmortem report indicating homicidal death, is flawed. They maintained that the prosecution failed to establish the accused's intent or knowledge regarding the deceased's demise. Even if oral testimony is accepted, the conviction should be under a lesser charge such as Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, given the absence of concrete proof from the postmortem report.
The state countered by emphasizing the oral testimony as sufficient proof of the homicidal death, supported by medical evidence serving as corroborative rather than primary evidence. They argued that in cases of uncertainty regarding the cause of death, direct witnesses' accounts hold significant weight. Therefore, dismissing the case due to procedural lapses by the prosecution or investigators would be unwarranted when eyewitnesses provide clarity on the circumstances leading to the demise.
The Court ruled, "Considering the fact that it was a case of single blow, and the nature of instruments used in the assault, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused persons had the requisite intention or knowledge that his act will cause death of the deceased."
"The background fact also drives one to the same conclusions. They were closely related, as accused no. 2 was the full brother of the informant, and there was some trivial dispute regarding which there was also a proposal for Panchayat to be held on the very next day," the Court added.
However, based on the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses present at the scene of the incident, which withstood cross-examination and lacked significant contradictions, both accused individuals were found guilty under Sections 324/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Regarding the sentencing, taking into account factors such as the age and past behaviour of the accused, as well as the circumstances surrounding the offence, the Court deemed that the period already spent in imprisonment would suffice to meet the demands of justice. Therefore, with the modification of finding and sentence, the appeal was partly allowed.
Appearance:
For the Appellants : Mr. V.P. Singh, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, APP
Case No.: Cr. Appeal (S.J.) No. 22 of 2013
Case Title: Jageshwar Ravidas and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 40