) ----- Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan v. …
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 283 of 1995 (P) ------ (Arising out of the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 30.08.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994) ----- Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan Versus .... …. Appellant The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondent With Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 173 of 1997 (P) ------ Mohammad Jarar .... …. Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) .... .... .... Respondent ------ PRESENT Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH ------ For the Appellant For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Amicus Curiae (in both these cases) : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P ------ JUDGEMENT By Court:- Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae and Mr. Vishwanath Roy, learned Spl.P.P. for the State. 2. These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 30.08.1995 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994, whereby and whereunder, both the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. The prosecution case as per the fardbeyan dated 27.08.1992, of the informant Smt. Chhato Devi (P.W. – 3) is that on 27.08.1992, she was in her house along with her sons and daughter-in-law and her husband had gone on duty. At about 8.30 A.M., appellant Md. Jarar came to her house and asked her son Shyamdeo to bring 2 to 3 cassettes and to accompany him as Laltu was calling him. Her son Shyamdeo, went with the appellant Md. Jarar. After half an hour, Md. Jarar, again came to her house in haste and informed that something had happened to Shyamdeo. Informant along with her other sons went to the house of -2- the accused Sanjay Yadav with the appellant Md. Jarar and reached to the house of Sanjay Yadav. When they entered inside the house of Sanjay Yadav, they saw Shyamdeo in an injured condition in pool of blood. Shyamdeo told them Laltu had shot him with pistol. The mother of Laltu was also there, who was tying cloth on the wound. In the meantime, Md. Jarar brought rickshaw and the injured was taken to the hospital on rickshaw. Informant further stated that she was going to the hospital with Md. Jarar,but, Md. Jarar, fled away. Informant reached to the Sadar Hospital and in the hospital her son Shyamdeo died during the course of treatment. 4. On the fardbeyan of the informant FIR being Borio P.S. Case no. 153/1992 dated 27.08.1992, was registered against both the appellants. Afer investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellants and cognizance of the offences were taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charge was frame under sections 302/149 IPC against the appellants and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid, hence, this appeal. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses out of whom P.W. 3 Chhato Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased; P.W. 5 Bhuneshwar Ram is the father deceased; P.W. 4 Bharat Ram and P.W. 6 Laxman Ram are the brothers of the deceased; P.W. 2 is Dr. S. P. Singh, who had conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased; P.W. 1 is Shreeram Yadav and P.W. 7 is Sikandar Paswan, and both are formal witnesses. 6. P.W. 1 Shreeram Yadav and P.W. 7 Sikandar Paswan both are formal witnesses and they have proved the fardbeyan and formal FIR which were marked as Ext.-1 and Ext.-3 respectively.P.W.-5 Bhuneshwar Ram is hearsay witness. 7. P.W. – 3 Chhato Devi is the informant of the case and mother of the deceased. Informant has stated in her evidence that on the date of occurrence, at about 8 am in the morning, she was in her house along with her four sons and daughter-in-law. Appellant Md. Jarar came to her house and told the informant’s son Shyamdeo to accompany him as Laltu was calling him with cassettes. Shyamdeo went to the house of accused with Md. Jarar. After half an hour, Md. Jarar came back and asked to accompany him as something had happened to Shyamdeo. Then, informant along with her sons went to the house of one Sanjay, -3- where they saw Shyamdeo in an injured condition. They asked, then she was told, Laltu had shot him. 8. P.W. – 4 Bharat Ram and P.W. – 6 Laxman Ram, both are brothers of the deceased Shyamdeo. Both PW-4 and PW-6 had stated in their evidence that on the date of occurrence, they were in their house. Appellant Md. Jarar came to their house and asked Shyamdeo to accompany him with cassettes as Laltu(appellant)was calling him and Shyamdeo and Md. Jarar left the house. After half an hour, Md. Jarar came back and told to accompany him as something had happened to Shyamdeo. On this information, they went to the house of Sanjay Yadav where they saw Shyamdeo in an injured condition. Shyamdeo was taken to hospital on rickshaw, where Shyamdeo died. 9. P.W. – 2 is Dr. S. P. Singh, who had conducted the postmortem examination of the dead body of the deceased Shyamdeo. Doctor had found the following injuries on the person of deceased: 1. One stitched wound (11 stich 6” in length). 2. Lacerated wound of 8”X1/4” with inverted margin over back at 1” away from mid line from 3rd lumber towards right side with Tattooing marking (wound of entry). 3. Fracture of 3rd lumber vertebra in so many pieces. 4. Lacerated wound of 1” in diameter over anterior abdominal wall overted margin (wound of exit). 5. On exploration of the abdominal cavity transverse colon was injured (lacerated wound 1”X1/2” in size). Lacerated injury of 1”X1/2 over small intestine with lacerated wound of 1’’x1’’ with hematoma formation over transverse mesocolone 6. The peritonial cavity contain small quantity of blood. Doctor opined that cause of death due to fire arms resulting the damage of vital organ like small intestine, lumber vertebra etc. (shock and haemorrhage) and time elapsed since death was within 6 hours. Doctor had proved the post mortem report of the deceased, which was marked as Ext.-2. 10. (I) Amicus Curiae has raised following defense on behalf of the appellants- (i). The date of occurrence as alleged in the First Information Report was 27.08.1992 whereas the First Information Report was received on 31.08.1992 i.e., after four days of to the alleged occurrence. -4- (ii). According to the injury, which is reflected in postmortem report, it was not possible for the injured Shyamdeo to make any statement that he was shot by fire arm by the appellant Tarkeshwar Ram@ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan. (iii). Doctor P. W. – 2, who had conducted the postmortem examination was also of view that in such injured condition, it was not possible to make any statement by injured person. (iv) Investigating Officer of the case has not been examined by the prosecution, and hence appellants have been prejudiced due to non- examination of the Investigating Officer. (v) Prosecution has not proved motive against the appellants for the alleged murder of the deceased. (II) Amicus also argued that the death of the deceased is attributable to an accident and even submitted that the deceased was carrying a gun or pistol which accidently shot fired leading to his death and there is no role of appellant Laltu for causing such firearm injury. (III) Amicus Curiae has also argued that so far as appellant Md. Jarar is concerned, he has no role in the alleged murder. He had only called Shyamdeo with some cassettes to the house of one Sanjay Yadav. Further, on Shyamdeo being injured or shot, Md. Jarar had informed his family and told them to come to Sanjay’s house, where Shyamdeo was in an injured state. Md. Jarar had assisted in taking the injured to the hospital and then only fled away out of fear, he had role in the killing. Amicus also submitted that said Sanjay Yadav was also tried alongwith the appellants and was acquitted by the learned trial court likewise appellant Md. Jarar, may also be acquitted of the charges. 11. On the other hand learned counsel for the state has submitted that informant PW-3 , who is the mother of the deceased has fully supported the prosecution case. Deceased had in an injured condition had told his mother or PW-3 that appellant Laltu had shot him. This fact has been corroborated by the two brothers of the deceased PW-4 and PW-6, who had also rushed to the place of occurrence. Learned counsel for the state further submitted that doctor PW-2, who had conducted post-mortem examination of the deceased had also found wound of exit and wound of entry on the person of the deceased, which proves that deceased was shot by fire arm. Learned counsel further submitted that Md. Jarar is an associate of the appellant-Laltu. -5- 12. We have heard both counsels, noted their submissions and the records of the case and the facts and circumstances. Both the appellants herein are convicted by the learned court below under Sections 302/149 IPC for causing death of Shyamdeo. Infromant P.W. -3 Chhato Devi, who is the mother of the deceased, two brothers of the deceased P.W. 4 Bharat Ram and P.W. – 6 Laxman Ram and the doctor PW-2 are the important witnesses of the case in hand. 13. P.W. -3 Chhato Devi, the mother of the deceased and the informant of the case in her fardbeyan had stated that when they entered inside the house of Sanjay Yadav, they saw Shyamdeo in an injured condition in pool of blood and Shyamdeo told them Laltu had shot him with pistol and injured him. In her evidence also informant has deposed that she alongwith her sons went to the house of one Sanjay, where they saw Shyamdeo in an injured condition. They asked, then she was told, Laltu had shot him. Further, PW-4 and PW-6, who are the brothers of the deceased Shyamdeo, they had also rushed to the place of occurrence and both P.W. – 4 and P.W. - 6 have deposed in their examination-in-chief that when their mother asked Shyamdeo what had happened, then, Shyamdeo told his mother that appellant Laltu had shot him. Hence, there is consistent evidence of informant PW-3 and brothers of the deceased PW-4 and PW-6 that appellant Laltu had shot him. It has also come in the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 that Shyamdeo was taken to hospital on rickshaw and at that time Shyamdeo was alive and he died in the hospital during treatment. The deceased was alive and was treated in the hospital is also corroborated by the postmortem report, Exhibit – 2, of the deceased wherein doctor had found one stitched wound of 11 stitches and 6” in length. 14. P.W. 2 is Dr. S. P. Singh, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and he had found 6 injuries on the person of the deceased out of which the doctor had found injury no. 2 and injury no.4 to be wound of entry and wound of exit respectively. Injury no. 2 is-lacerated wound of 8”x1/4” with inverted margin over back at 1” away from mid line from 3rd lumber towards right side with tattooing marking (wound of entry) and injury no.4 is- lacerated wound of 1” in diameter over anterior abdominal wall overted margin (wound of exit). Doctor opined that the cause of death is due to fire arm injury. In his cross- examination doctor deposed that wound cannot be self-inflicted. -6- 15. Hence, evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 which is corroborated by the the medical evidence of the doctor PW-2, throws light on the cause of death of the deceased that appellant Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan, had shot fire arm on the deceased Shyamdeo as a result Shyamdeo died. The plea of amicus that the appellants have been prejudiced due to non-examination of Investigating Officer of the case is not tenable in view of deposition of doctor P.W. – 2 and evidence of informant P.W. – 3, P.W. – 4 and P.W. – 6. Hence prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan, under section 302 of IPC. 16. So far as appellant Md. Jarar is concerned, on perusal of the evidence, it is clear that the only role that can be attributable to Md. Jarar is calling and accompanying him to meet the appellant Laltu. Thereafter, Md. Jarar in worried condition came quickly and takes the deceased mother PW-3 accompanied by her sons PW-4 and PW-6 and go to Sanjay Yadav’s house where the deceased Shyamdeo revealed that appellant Laltu had shot him. Hence, we find no role of the appellant Md. Jarar, in the death of the deceased Shyamdeo. So, appellant Md. Jarar is acquitted of the charges under section 302 IPC. 17. Hence, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.08.1995, passed against the appellant Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan, by the learned Sessions Judge, Sahibganj in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1994, is hereby sustained and upheld. Bail bond of the appellant Tarkeshwar Ram @ Laltu Ram @ Laltu Paswan, is cancelled. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed against the appellant Mohammad Jarar, is hereby set aside. Appellant Mohammad Jarar is discharged from the liabilities of bail bond. 18. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 173 of 1997 (P) is allowed and Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 283 of 1995(P) is dismissed. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 28.11.2023 Umesh/-