Buudhu Singh vs State Of Jharkhand

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 349 OF 2007

BUDDHU SINGH ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) ...RESPONDENT

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1116 OF 2007

LEDWA SINGH & ANR. ...APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND) ...RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

SIRPURKAR, J.

1. Criminal Appeal No. 349 of 2007 has been filed by

accused Buddhu Singh while Criminal Appeal No. 1116 of 2007

has been filed by his father Ledwa Singh and brother

Balchand Singh. The trial court found them guilty under

Section 302 IPC and sentenced each one of them to

imprisonment for life. The High Court also affirmed the

conviction and sentenced awarded by the trial court.

2. The prosecution case is that the deceased Sugendra

Singh was suspected to be practising witchcraft and he was

aggrieved against the accused persons for not giving to

him the feast which he was professionally supposed to be

paid on account of getting cured of accused Balchand Singh

2

from some serious illness. The incident seems to have

taken suddenly without there being any previous history to

it.

3 The allegation is that on 30.7.1995 at about 4 p.m.

deceased Surendra Singh was standing in front of house of

PW5 Nagru Kharia when accused Balchand Singh pushed him

down and accused Buddhu Singh is said to have then dealt

an axe blow which landed on the head of the deceased.

Accused Ledwa Singh is, thereafter, said to have started

kicking the deceased. It is reported that on account of

that blow, Sugendra Singh was seriously injured and died

in the hospital.

4. The prosecution pressed in service the evidence of

three eye witnesses namely; PW 2 Feku Kharia, PW6 - Karia

Singh and PW7 Tijo Devi. PWs 2 and 6 turned hostile and

refused to support the prosecution. PW7, being the mother

of the deceased, however, supported the prosecution case.

According to her, she saw the accused Balchand Singh and

Ledwa Singh grappling with the deceased while accused

Buddhu Singh giving an axe blow on the head of the

deceased.

5. We have gone through the evidence of the witnesses

very carefully.

6. Mr. Ajit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the

accused persons contended that firstly this was a case of

3

single blow and the blow could not have been intended to be

given on the head though it did land on the head. Mr.

Pandey further argued that if the intention was to commit

the murder, then the accused persons, more particularly

accused Buddhu Singh would have repeated the assault

which he actually and admittedly did not repeat.

7. Mr. Pandey further contended that once the injury

was unintended, the offence could be converted into Section

304 Part II IPC from Section 302 IPC because the accused

ought to have the knowledge that a single assault by an

axe could result into the death of the deceased.

8. Mr. Manish Mohan, learned counsel appearing for the

State supported the judgment and contended that the injury

was serious enough and was on a very vital part i.e. head

and resulted in the fracture of frontal bone and the death

was almost instantaneous, though in the hospital.

9. Considering the overall material, we are of the

view that there is hardly anything on record which can be

said against the accused Ledwa Singh and Balchand Singh

though the common intention on their part could be

attributed since they had done the over act of grappling

with and pinning down the deceased. Now, seeing his

father and brother had been grappling with the deceased,

the accused Buddhu Singh dealt an axe blow which could not

4

be said to be intended towards the head. It could have

landed anywhere. However, it landed on the head of the

deceased. Therefore, the element of intention is ruled

out. Again the defence raised on behalf of the accused

that there could not have been the intention to commit

the murder of the deceased is justified by the fact that

the accused Buddhu Singh did not repeat the assault. Under

the circumstances, we feel that the prosecution has been

able to establish the guilt of the accused persons under

Section 304 Part II I.P.C.

10. We, accordingly, modify the finding of the High

Court and convert the conviction of the accused from

Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC and sentence

each of them to the period already undergone. Accused

Buddhu Singh is stated to be in jail for the last five

years whereas other accused persons namely; Ledwa Sngh and

Balchand Singh are stated to be in jail for the last ten

years. They be released from the jail forthwith unless they

are required in any other case.

11. The appeals are partially allowed.

......................J.

[ V.S. SIRPURKAR ]

......................J.

5

[ T.S. THAKUR ]

NEW DELHI

APRIL 28, 2011.