(2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 1 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.72 of 2020 ------ (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa) ------ Gola Mundri aged about 46 years, son of Late Taba Mundri, resident of Village- Meromgutu, P.O. & P.S.- Bandgaon, District- West Singhbhum … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, Sr. Advocate Ms. Sumitra Kumari, Advocate For the State : Ms. Vandana Bharti, Addl.P.P., Addl.P.P. ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ------ By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Appeal (DB) has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.08.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.116 of 2013 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No.39 of 2012 corresponding to G.R. Case No.383 of 2012 by which the appellant has been held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. He has also been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of the (2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 2 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.5,00/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased Parau Mundri who is the agnate of the appellant, used to sleep in the house of the appellant. In the intervening night of 04/05.12.2012, there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife. The deceased intervened in the same and out of the rage, the appellant assaulted the deceased with a Baithi (a sharp cutting tool used to cut vegetables by putting one foot on the base of it; while the cutting edge is fitted vertically to the base) on his chest causing injuries to the deceased which ultimately resulted in his death. 4. The prosecution in support of its case, altogether examined six witnesses and also proved three documents which were marked as Exhibit 1 to Exhibit 3. 5. P.W.-5 namely Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda and P.W.-6 namely Dr. Arvind Kumar Rajak are the doctors. 6. P.W.-3 namely Charan Mundri is the main material witness of the prosecution. He is the informant of the case. He is the post-occurrence witness. He is the father of the deceased. On hearing the screaming of his son in the night while he was sleeping in his house at a distance of 15 feet from the house of the appellant, he went to the place of occurrence along with his wife and found his son lying outside the house of the appellant. On seeing the P.W.-3 and his wife, the appellant went inside his house. The P.W.-3 saw the blood stained Baithi in the (2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 3 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 hand of the appellant. He has further stated that appellant killed his son by assaulting him with a Baithi on his chest. He has further stated that the reason for the occurrence is that the appellant was fighting with his wife. The deceased went to save the wife of the appellant but the appellant killed the deceased. 7. P.W.-1 namely Magdali Mundri, P.W.-2 namely Birsa Mudri and P.W.-4 name Gola Mundri all are hearsay witnesses. They have not seen any part of the occurrence. 8. P.W.-5 namely Dr. Devi Prasad Hansda conducted the autopsy of the dead body and the P.W.-6 namely Dr. Arvind Kumar Rajak examined the wife of the appellant namely Rupani Mundri who also sustained injuries by being assaulted by the appellant. 9. On the basis of the evidence in the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa convicted and sentenced the appellant as already indicated above. 10. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa failed to consider that this is not a case of pre-meditated killing of the deceased rather even assuming the case of the prosecution to be true still it is the case where the appellant got enraged by the intervention of the deceased in the quarrel between him and his wife and assaulted the deceased resulting in his death. It is next submitted that there is no repeated blow given by the appellant but only a single blow was given; which further goes to show that the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased. It is further submitted that the prosecution has withheld (2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 4 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 the sole eye-witness of the case namely Rupani Mundri without any plausible reason and at best, the case is based on circumstantial evidence of the P.W.-3 because the P.W.-3 is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that at the most this is a case punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code but certainly the Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa has erred in holding the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further submitted that the appellant has been in custody for more than 13 (thirteen) years. Hence, it is submitted that the appeal be allowed. 11. Learned Addl. P. P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that it is out and out a case of murder because the injury was inflicted on the vital part of the body of the deceased. Therefore, it is submitted that this Criminal Appeal (DB), being without any merit, be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, we find that it is the admitted case of the prosecution that during the quarrel between the appellant and his wife, the deceased intervened and the appellant being enraged by the intervention of the deceased assaulted the deceased. Further, there is no repetition of the blow upon the deceased and the weapon of offence was not brought by the appellant for the purpose of inflicting the blow but at the spur of moment whatever he was having in his hand i.e., Baithi which is a household article, has been used for inflicting the blow upon the deceased. There is (2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 5 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 no evidence in the record that there was any reason other than the intervention of the deceased in the quarrel between the appellant and his wife, for the appellant inflicting injury upon the deceased. 13. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Virsa Singh versus State of Punjab reported in AIR 1958 SC 465 that the weapon used, the antecedent relations of the parties, the manner in which the attack was made that is to say sudden or premeditated, whether the injury was inflicted during a struggle or grappling, the number of injuries inflicted are some of the relevant factors to determine whether the offence is one punishable under Part-I of section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. Considering the aforesaid facts of this case and the settled principle of law, we are of the considered opinion that the evidence in the record is insufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code rather the evidence in the record is sufficient to constitute the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we modify the conviction of the appellant from under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to one under Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. 15. So far as the sentence of the appellant is concerned, considering the fact that the appellant has already undergone custody for more than 13 (thirteen) years; we are of the considered view that the sentence of the period already undergone by the appellant will suffice as the punishment. So, the punishment of life imprisonment of the appellant is (2026:JHHC:25341-DB) 6 Cr. App. (DB). No.72 of 2020 modified to the period he has already undergone in custody; including the default sentence for payment of fine. 16. We do not interfere with the conviction of the appellant under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code but since the appellant has already undergone the sentence, therefore, we direct the appellant to be set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required in any other case. 17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal (DB) stands disposed of. 18. In view of disposal of the instant Criminal Appeal (DB), Interlocutory Application No.3707 of 2026 stands disposed of being infructuous. 19. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent back to the learned court concerned forthwith. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 21st of August, 2026 AFR/ Animesh Uploaded on- 03/09/2026