SATTO MIRDHA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application is directed against the judgment dated 05.03.2014, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dumka in Criminal Appeal No. 01 of 2014 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was partly allowed. The learned trial court vide its judgment dated 24.01.2014 convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 and 341 IPC, whereas the learned appellate court while affirming the conviction under Section 307 IPC acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 341 IPC. The petitioner was directed to undergo sentence for a period of 5 years with fine for the offence under Section 307 IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case in short is that Jarmundi P.S. Case No. 181/09 has been instituted under Section 341 , 323 , 325 and 307 IPC on the basis of a written report submitted by one Sumeshwar Mirdha and according to him on 27.10.2009 at 1:30 P.M. he was digging a pit for flowing water from hand pump situated in front of his house. In the meantime Satto Mirdha (accused) armed with spade came there and asked the informant to fill up the pit. The accused further told that he shall not allow him to dig the pit, upon this the informant replied that he has dug the pit on his own land and thereafter the accused inflicted a blow from blunt portion of spade on the head of informant causing bleeding injury and due to this informant fell down. It is alleged that the accused started assaulting the informant by lathi and on alarm the villagers and mother of the informant assembled there and brought him to police station. According to the informant the accused wanted to kill him. The police after completion of investigation has submitted charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant is P.W.-4 and he is nephew of the informant as such they are related to each other. He further submits that there was a sudden altercation with regard to digging of the pit. As a matter of fact the petitioner has no intention to kill the informant rather it was sudden altercation and due to that, he gave the spade blow to the informant. He further submits that the injury was simple in nature as admitted by doctor who was examined as P.W.-5 and the petitioner was discharged within 12 hours from the hospital as such, the learned trial court has committed an error in convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 IPC. At best, he could have convicted under Section 323 IPC for the reason that the injury was simple in nature as admitted by the prosecution also. He concluded his argument by submitting that the petitioner remained in custody for about 7 months and at present aged about 50 years as such, some leniency may be granted by this Court.