State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Vs. Manoj Sahu @ Manoj Prasad Sahu - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - the appellant asked his elder brother, ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu to do whatever he liked. her son (pw 3) and daughter (pw 2) tried to rescue but failed. when the deceased informed that he would take decision on the next morning, then by force the appellant manoj sahu dragged the deceased and took him on the road in front of the house of ram pratap sahu (pw 1). meena kumari (pw 2), informant (pw 4) and bultan sahu (pw 3) tried to object but they failed. ii). both the injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature, caused by sharp cutting penetrating weapon like knife.lakshman uraon, j.1. the sole appellant manoj sahu alias manoj prasad sahu has preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment and order of convictin and sentence dated 29.8.2000 and 1.9.2000 respectively, passed by the learned sessions judge. gumla in sessions trial no. 277 of 1998, whereby and whereunder, he (the appellant) has been convicted under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentenced to death.2. the prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of lila devi (pw 4), wife of the deceased ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu, recorded by sri b.b. verma, officer-in-charge, sisai police station on 14.7.1998 at 12 noon (ext. 4), is that the husband of the informant. ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu, had returned from gumla market on cycle to his village home, murgu, police station-sisai at about 9.30 p.m. her dewar manoj sahu, having a chaku (knife) in his right had went there and informed ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu that bultan sahu (pw 3) did not obey his order to graze his cattle and hence he had assaulted him and the informant had abused him (the appellant) enough. the appellant asked his elder brother, ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu to do whatever he liked. at his, ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu replied that in the next morning he will reconcile the matter. the appellant then became angry and caught hold of his hand and dragged him towards the house of ram pratap sahu (pw i). the informant lila devi (pw 4), her daughter meena kumari (pw 2) and her son bultan sahu (pw 3) tried to object but the appellant. manoj sahu, did not listen and took him (ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu) on road in front of the house of ram pratap sahu and gave chaku blows on the chest and abdomen of ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu. on being injured ram briksh sahu fell down and died instantaneously. the appellant, manoj sahu thereafter, fled away. on hearing the cry of the informant her son and daughter, the villagers. manu sao (pw 6) and radha sao (pw 7) including others, came there. with their help the dead body was taken at the united door and was kept on a cot. the cause of the alleged occurrence has been alleged that bultan sahu (pw 3) did not graze the cattle of the appellant. there was some altercation, resulting in the murder of ram briksh sahu alia jhagru sahu. on the basis of the fardbeyan, a case was registered and charge-sheet was submitted against the sole appellant under section 302 of the indian penal code.3. the prosecution has examined nine witnesses in order to prove its case. out of them, pw 8 is dr. krishna prasad, who has conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of ram briksh sahu, pw 9 b.b. verma is the investigating officer of this case. pw l (ram pratap sahu), pw 6 (manu sahu) and pw 7 (radha sahu) have been declared hostile by the prosecution. p.w. 5 (shrinath sahu) is a formal witness. thus, the remaining three witnesses, namely, pw 2 (meena kumari), daughter of the deceased. pw 3 (bultan sahu), son of the deceased, and pw 4 (lila devi), wife of the deceased, remained who have deposed in support of the prosecution case. the learned sessions judge considering the evidence available on record, found the sole appellant guilty for the charge levelled against him under section 302 of the indian penal code and after hearing on the point of sentence, appellant was sentenced to death.4. the learned sessions judge has referred the same for affirmation of the death sentence vide reference letter no. 1729 dated 1st september. 2000, which has been registered as death reference no. 3 of 2000. the convict (appellant) also preferred appeal against the said judgment and order of conviction and death sentence, resulting cr. appeal no. 334 of 2000.5. both death reference no. 3 of 2000 and cr. appeal no. 334 of 2000 were heard by us simultaneously.6. the defence of the sole appellant appears that he had not taken any plea regarding the evidences adduced against him and had simply replied that he had nothing to say in his examination under section 313 of the code of criminal procedure.7. the point for consideration before us is that as to whether the conviction and sentence, passed by the learned sessions judge, can be sustained.8. the place of occurrence is village-murgu. the deceased was the elder brother of the appellant. on the date of the alleged occurrence, the appellant was alone at home and other brothers had been at gumla for their daily wages earnings. at that time in the home, only the informant (pw 4), her son bultan sahu (pw 3) and her daughter meena kumari (pw 2) were present. when ram briksh sahu (deceased) returned home on cycle from gumla at about 9.30 p.m. in the night and was standing in his angan, then the appellant went there with a chaku in his hand and informed that his son bultan sahu (pw 3) did not graze his cattle so he had slapped him. then the informant (pw 4) had abused the appellant. as such, the appellant wanted some decision. the deceased (ram briksh sahu) informed that he would decide it in the morning. pw 4 (informant) has stated that manoj sahu caught hold of her husband and took him infront of the house of ram pratap sahu (pw 1) on the road and stabbed twice with chaku. chaku blows were given on the abdomen and chest of the deceased. on being injured, he fell down and died at the spot. her son (pw 3) and daughter (pw 2) tried to rescue but failed. on their cry, pw 6 (manu sao) and pw 7 (radha sao), including others, went there and took the dead-body on the varandah in front of united door.9. pw 2 (meena kumar) and pw 3 (bultan sahu) have corroborated the evidence of their mother lila devi (pw 4).10. pw 2 (meena kumari) has further stated in her cross-examination that their villager-murgu consists of amount 300 house. at that night there was slight rain. formal witness (pw 5) had also been at the place of occurrence when the other villagers assembled. pw 3 (bultan sahu) has also stated that when he did not graze the cattle of his uncle manoj sahu, then he was assaulted with fists and slaps. his mother abused the appellant and that is why when ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu returned home at about 9.30 p.m., he asked to have some decision regarding the alleged abuse, made by his wife only because he had slapped his son, as he did not graze the cattle. when the deceased informed that he would take decision on the next morning, then by force the appellant manoj sahu dragged the deceased and took him on the road in front of the house of ram pratap sahu (pw 1). meena kumari (pw 2), informant (pw 4) and bultan sahu (pw 3) tried to object but they failed. on the road the sole appellant gave chaku blows on the chest and abdomen of ram briksh sahu. on being given chaku blows, ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu fell down and died at the spot. on hulla, the villagers including pws. 5, 6 and 7 reached there.11. on that day all uncles, except the appellant, had been at gumla. only ram briksh sahu (deceased) had returned home from gumla. tulsi sahu was informed, who also came on the next morning. at the home of pw 1 (ram pratap sahu), television was on and hence none from the house of ram pratap sahu came out on hearing crying of the informant, her son and daughter. at the place of occurrence there was blood in abundance. on that night there was slight rainfall.12. pw 8 dr. krishna prasad, conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead-body of the deceased on 14.7.1998 at 3.30 p.m. and found incised and penetrating wound over left memuary region piercing the left lung resulting into left hemo thorax size of injury 1/2' x 1/2' x 2' (injury no. 1) and incised and penetrating injury on the left side penetrating the petonial cavity, injuring the wall at three places and damaging also the vessels size 1' x 1/2' x.2' (injury no. ii). both the injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature, caused by sharp cutting penetrating weapon like knife. injury was caused within 12 to 36 hours from the time of postmortem examination. the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock. this witness prepared his post-mortem examination report in his pen and signature (ext. 3).13. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that none of the independent witnesses has been examined by the prosecution although pw 2 (meena kumari) has stated that the village locality is thickly populated. pw 8 (dr. krishna prasad), who conducted the postmortem examination, has stated that the injuries were grievous which is not a case for imposing death penalty to the appellant. it was submitted that death sentence ought to have been given in extreme circumstances in a rarest case. pw 1 (ram pratap sahu) has not supported the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile although the place of occurrence is in front of his house, on the road. only in the next morning he came to know about the occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased.14. learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that only the interested witnesses i.e. pws 2, 3 and 4 have supported the case of the prosecution, although the independent witnesses were available in the village, which is thickly populated, and referred a decision of high court, reported in 1985 pljr 341 : 1985 east cr c 833 (prabhu rai v. the state of bihar). it was also submitted that evidence of the interested witnesses can not be relied upon, in absence of corroboration by the independent village witnesses. learned counsel has also referred the case laws, as reported in 1993 (2) blj 626 and 1989(2) blj 223.15. the evidence of the closely related witnesses namely, pw 2 (meena kumari), daughter of the deceased, pw 3 (bultan sahu), son of the deceased) and pw 4 (lila devi), wife of the deceased, who is the informant in this case, have corroborated the prosecution evidence regarding the place of occurrence, manner of the alleged occurrence and assembling of the villagers and arrival of police in the next morning. injuries, as given in their oral evidence, were fully supported by the medical evidence, adduced by the doctor (pw 8). he found the injuries, which were incised and penetrating wounds, over left mamuary region pearcing the left lung resulting into left hemo thorax injury. second injury also was incised and penetrating injury on the left side, penetrating the petonial cavity damaging at three places and also the vessels. both injuries were ante-mortem and grievous in nature, caused within 12 to 36 hours approximately. he also deposed that both the injuries were not possible with sharp pointed materials. it goes to prove that the appellant manoj sahu stabbed with chaku, a sharp edged and pointed weapon. the evidence of the interested witnesses i.e. pws 2, 3 and 4 were supported by the medical evidence of pw 8. the village witnesses, namely, pws. 6 and 7 saw the dead-body of ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu in a pool of blood. they were informed by the informant pw 4 lila devi that her husband, ram briksh sahu, was murdered by chaku blows, given by this appellant.16. the alleged occurrence took place only because the son of the deceased did not graze the cattle of the appellant. as such, he slapped him on which the mother of bultan sahu abused the appellant, which was to be settled by the deceased, but when the deceased returned home at 9.30 p.m. in the night and on being asked by his brother (appellant), he replied that he would decide the matter in the morning. this furiated appellant so he dragged the deceased and took him on the road in front of the house of ram pratap sahu (pw 1). thereafter, he gave chaku blows on his chest and abdomen, causing injuries. he fell down and died at the spot where blood was found. the investigating officer found the place of occurrence to be the road and had given definite place of occurrence to be the road in front of the house of ram pratap sahu (pw 1). this was also supported by the interested witnesses i.e. pws 2, 3 and 4 as also other hostile witnesses. the alleged occurrence took place without any pre-planning to cause the murder of ram briksh sahu alias jhagru sahu by this appellant. all brothers were living separately having separate mess. there was no any dispute regarding the property. the alleged occurrence took place all of a sudden for which motive is not required to be proved in a case under section 302 of the indian penal code. the evidence of interested witnesses have been corroborated by the medical evidence. the hostile witnesses were also informed who saw the dead-body of ram briksh sahu (deceased) and took it on the door. thus, i do not find any ground to disbelieve the evidence of interested and closely related witnesses merely on the ground that they are son, daughter and wife of the deceased and hence their evidence can not be discarded.17. in view of the above considered facts and circumstances of the case. i come to the conclusion that the evidence is intact, to lead to conclusion that this sole appellant is responsible to cause murder of his elder brother (deceased) by giving chaku blows on his chest and abdomen.18. thus, i find that there is no reason to disagree with the conviction under section 302 of the indian penal code, passed by the learned sessions judge against the sole appellant.19. on the other hand on perusal of the evidence referred to above the manner and time of the alleged occurrence, i come to the conclusion that it is a case of simple murder to attract section 302 of the indian penal code which took place without any preplanning. this case does not come under the preview of 'rarest case among the rare cases' to confirm capital punishment as passed by the learned court below, which was referred for confirmation in death reference no. 3 of 2000.20. in the result, this appeal is dismissed. the death sentence passed by the learned sessions judge, gumla, and referred for confirmation of the same is not affirmed and it is converted into imprisonment for life for the offence, punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code.s.j. mukhopadhaya, j.21. i agree.