Jharkhand HC Upholds Six-Year Culpable-Homicide Sentence For Man Who Kicked Wedding Guest In The Stomach

In brief

The question

1. Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 304/34 IPC were supported by the evidence and warranted interference on appeal.

The court held

The appeal was partly allowed for John Tudu: his conviction and sentence under Sections 304/34 IPC were set aside, and he was convicted under Section 323 IPC, with the period already undergone treated as sufficient; he was discharged from his bail obligations.

It also directed

Mardhu Tudu’s conviction and six-year sentence under Sections 304/34 IPC were upheld.

His bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within two months to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court was to take coercive steps.

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

01Facts

On 1 May 2007, after attending a marriage ceremony, the deceased, Indrasen Hembram, intervened in a quarrel involving Mardhu Tudu.

¶ 4–5

The prosecution alleged that Mardhu Tudu, Bijay Soren and John Tudu assaulted him, causing him to fall; Mardhu then kicked him in the chest and stomach.

¶ 4–5

The deceased later died, and the post-mortem attributed death to shock and internal haemorrhage from ruptures to the stomach and small intestine.

¶ 4–5, 17

The trial court convicted the appellants under Sections 304/34 IPC and sentenced them to six years’ rigorous imprisonment.

¶ 6, 9

During the appeal, the appeal of original appellant Bijay Soren abated on his death; Mardhu Tudu and John Tudu remained before the Court.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the conviction and sentence under Sections 304/34 IPC were supported by the evidence and warranted interference on appeal.

¶ 12

ii.2. Whether John Tudu’s conviction under Sections 304/34 IPC could be sustained, or whether his liability should be reduced to an offence under Section 323 IPC.

¶ 19

03Law Applied

Under Section 304 IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder is punishable according to the applicable statutory provision; Section 34 IPC attributes joint liability where a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention.

Section 323 IPC addresses voluntarily causing hurt.

The Court also applied the principle that a conviction may rest on the uncorroborated testimony of a sole witness if that testimony is wholly reliable and inspires confidence.

¶ 19

Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 34 Section 302 Section 304 Section 323

04Reasoning

The Court treated the informant, the deceased’s wife, as the sole eyewitness and found her testimony reliable and corroborated by the medical evidence.

¶ 16–19

The post-mortem findings were consistent with her account that the deceased was assaulted and that the stomach injury could have been caused by kicks or feet.

¶ 16–19

However, the Court considered the principal allegation of assault to the chest and stomach to be against Mardhu Tudu, and held that the evidence did not sustain John Tudu’s conviction under Sections 304/34 IPC.

¶ 19–20

It nevertheless found John guilty under Section 323 IPC and considered his approximately four months in custody sufficient punishment.

¶ 19–20

It found no basis to interfere with Mardhu Tudu’s conviction and sentence.

¶ 23

05Holding

¶ 21–22

Mardhu Tudu’s conviction and six-year sentence under Sections 304/34 IPC were upheld.

¶ 23

His bail was cancelled, and he was directed to surrender within two months to serve the remaining sentence, failing which the trial court was to take coercive steps.

¶ 23–24

The appeal was accordingly disposed of.

¶ 25

LawLens.Jharkhand High Court

Original Court PDF