The High Court · 2024
Case Details
1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.256 of 2019 ---------- [Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2019 (sentence passed on 17.01.2019) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial Case No.121 of 2014, arising out of Manoharpur P.S. Case No.05 of 2014, corresponding to G.R. Case No.13 of 2014] Adikar Pareya @ Bhim … Appellant -Versus- The State of Jharkhand … Respondent ---------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH For the Appellant For the State : Mrs. Abha Verma, Advocate : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P ---------- --------- C.A.V. On : 1 1/01/ 202 4 Pronounced On: 15/03/2024
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P on behalf of the State. The appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2019 (sentence passed on 17.01.2019) passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in connection with S.T Case No. 121/2014, arising out of Manoharpur P.S Case No.05/2014, corresponding to G.R Case No.13/2014 holding the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim guilty of offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years alongwith a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo an additional rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the default. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 concurrently. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Faguni Soy, stating therein that on 12.01.2014 at about 9:30 P.M, his neighbor Adikar Pareya @ Bhim Pareya came to his house and started abusing the informant and her family members. When the husband of the informant Vijay Soy tried to pacify the matter, the appellant dragged him to his house and took out a Farsa and inflicted several farsa blows on the person of Vijay Soy, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. It is the further case of the prosecution that when the informant and her mother tried to intervene, they were also assaulted. After investigation, the police found the occurrence to be true and submitted chargesheet under Sections 302, 307, 324 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was committed to the court of Sessions by Sri Arjun Saw, learned Judicial Magistrate, first class, Porahat at Chaibasa as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The charge was framed on 03.06.2014. The contents of the charge under Sections 302, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code was read over and explained to the appellant, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Sanjay Gupta P.W.1 has supported the prosecution case. He has proved his signature on the seizure lists which are marked as Exhibits 1 & 2 respectively. Sita Kerketta P.W.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. She is also an injured witness. She has also supported the prosecution case. Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit P.W.3 had conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Vijay Soy. He has proved the postmortem report, which is Exhibit-3. Bhola Tiwary P.W.4 has been declared as hostile witness. 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 Shankar Mukhi P.W.5 is another hostile witness. Krishna Prasad Gupta P.W.6 is also a hostile witness. Surpati Paswan P.W.7 is the I.O of the case. He has proved the fardbeyan of the informant, which is Exhibit-4. He has further proved the formal F.I.R which is Exhibit-5. He has proved the seizure lists which are Exhibits-1/1 & 2/1 respectively. He has proved the inquest report, which is Exhibit-7. He has also proved the confession of the appellant, which is Exhibit-6 with objection. He has further proved the place of occurrence. He has also proved the F.S.L report which is Exhibit-8. Faguni Soy P.W.8 is the informant of the case. She has supported the prosecution case. Dr. Bhaskar Mahato P.W.9 had examined the injured Faguni Soy and her mother Sita Kerketta. He has proved the injury reports, which were Exhibits-9 series. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary available on record, learned Trial Court held the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim guilty for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Statement of the appellant has been recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. Smt. Abha Verma, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that there is no independent witness to the occurrence. He has further stated that the learned Court below has held the appellant guilty only on the basis of statements of the informant and her mother, who are highly interested witnesses. On these grounds, it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. Learned A.P.P on behalf of the State has submitted that both the informant Faguni Soy and her mother Sita Kerketta are injured witnesses and as such, their 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 presence at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. He has further submitted that the appellant was apprehended. He has confessed his guilt and on his confession, Farsa used in committing murder of the deceased was recovered from his house. The same was sent to F.S.L for forensic examination and from perusal of forensic report, it is evident that the blood found on the Farsa was of human origin. On this ground, it was submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and as such, this appeal be dismissed. Now, it has to be decided whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be further ascertained : (I) Whether the deceased Vijay Soy died homicidal death ? (II) Whether the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim had caused the homicidal death of the deceased ? The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Vijay Soy died homicidal death. Surpati Paswan P.W.7 is the I.O of the case. He has proved the inquest report of the deceased Vijay Soy, which is Exhibit-7. From perusal of the inquest report (Exhibit-7), it transpired that the face of the deceased Vijay Soy was found in mutilated condition. The injury on the face of the deceased was opined to be caused by Farsa, which is a heavy sharp cutting weapon. Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit P.W.3 has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased Vijay Soy. According to this witness, he has found the following ante-mortem injuries on his person : A) External and internal examination - I) Multiple sharp deep cut on face, scalp and on neck. There is multiple sharp cut of scalp bone and facial bone. There is multiple contusion of brain matter and blood and blood clot present inside wound bed. II) There are multiple bruises and abraision on anterior chest wall revealed blood clot under bruised skin, III) Stomach- partially digested rice, pulse and vegetable present. IV) Heart- Both chamber empty. B) Time since death- More than 6 hours but within 36 hours as rigor mortis 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 fully developed in both upper and lower limb. C) Cause of death- death is due to head and face injury leading to massive haemorrhage, shock and death. Injuries are caused by sharp heavy object and antemortem in nature. According to this witness, the death of the deceased was caused due to face injury, leading to massive haemorrhage and shock, and the injury was caused by a sharp heavy object. He has proved the postmortem report, which is Exhibit-3. From perusal of the postmortem report (Exhibit-3), it appears that the findings of Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandit in the postmortem report fully corroborates his statement made before the Court regarding the injury found on the person of the deceased. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we come to the finding that the deceased Vijay Soy had died homicidal death. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim has caused homicidal death of the deceased. Sita Kerketta P.W.2 has stated that about four years ago, the appellant has inflicted Balua blow on Vijay Soy, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. She has further stated that she tried to intervene, but the appellant also inflicted injury on her hand. Learned Trial Court has taken cognizance of the injury, caused on the hand of this witness, which was readily apparents. Faguni Soy P.W.8 is the informant of the case. She has stated that the deceased Vijay Soy was her husband. He was murdered by the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim at the time of occurrence. She was present at her house alongwith her husband, children and mother. The appellant and his wife who also resided in the adjacent room, were quarreling, when Vijay Soy asked them not to quarrel and thereafter, the appellant came with Balua and inflicted several blows on his person, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. She has further stated that she and her mother Sita Kerketta tried to intervene, but the appellant also assaulted them, 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 causing injury on her hand, chest and face and forearm of her mother. She has identified the appellant in dock. In her cross-examination, she has reiterated that when the appellant was assaulting the deceased, she was present at the place of occurrence. Sanjay Gupta P.W.1 has stated that Vijay Soy was a driver of his dumper and he resided in the garage of his house. The appellant was a rickshaw puller and he also resided in another garage of his house. He has stated that he has proved his signature on the seizure list relating to recovery of bloodstained mud and bloodstained Farsa, which are Exhibit-1 series. Surpati Paswan P.W.7 has stated that he has proved the Fardbeyan which is Exhibit-4. He has further proved the formal F.I.R which is Exhibit-5. He has stated that the appellant was apprehended. He confessed his guilt and on his confession, a bloodstained Farsa (Balua) was recovered on his pointing out and the seizure list was prepared. He has proved the seizure list which are Exhibits- 1/1 & 2/1 respectively. He has further stated that bloodstained Balua was sent for forensic examination. From perusal of seizure list Exhibits 1/1 & 2/1 respectively, it transpired that the bloodstained Farsa (Balua) was recovered on his pointing out from the place near lamp-post outside Manoharpur garage. The report of forensic examination of bloodstained Farsa (Balua) has been marked as Exhibit-8 and from perusal of which, it appears that the blood found on the Farsa (Balua) was of human origin. Dr. Bhaskar Mahato P.W.9 has stated that on 12.01.2014, he examined Faguni Soy (P.W.8), the wife of the deceased Vijay Soy and found the following injuries on her body : 1. Incised wound on right side of chest (infra clavicular region) 2 inch x 1/2 inch x 1/2 inch. 2. Incised wound on left breast 1 inch x 1/2 inch x 1/4 inch. 7 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 3. Incised wound on left forearm 1/1/2 x 1/2 x 1/2. According to this witness, the injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon. He has further stated that on the same day, he examined Sita Kerketta (P.W.2) and found the following injuries on her person : I) Open fracture right forearm. II) Abrasion left hand dorsum 1 inch x 1/2 inch. The injuries were grievous in nature and he has proved the injury reports of both these injured, which are Exhibit-9 series. From the the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that Faguni Soy P.W.8 being the informant has supported the prosecution case and has stated that the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim has inflicted several Farsa blows on her husband, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries. Her statement is corroborated by the statement of Sita Kerketta P.W.2 that the appellant had assaulted the deceased, to which, he succumbed to his injuries and when they tried to intervene, the appellant has also assaulted them, due to which, they also sustained injuries. This fact has been corroborated by the statement of Dr. Bhaskar Mahato P.W.9, who had examined both these witnesses and found several injuries on their persons. Accordingly, their presence at the place of occurrence stands affirmed. They have also corroborated each other on the manner of occurrence. The prosecution has proved that on the basis of confession of the appellant, the murder weapon which is Farsa (Balua) was recovered. This weapon was bloodstained and it was sent for forensic examination and as per the forensic report, the blood found on the Balua was of human origin. Both Faguni Soy P.W.8 and Sita Kerketta P.W.2 have stated that the appellant had inflicted Balua blows on them, when they tried to intervene in order to protect the deceased Vijay Soy. The oral testimony of Sita Kerketta P.W.2 that she had sustained injury, is corroborated by the medical report, whereas she has 8 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.256/2019 sustained grievous injury on her right forearm and oral testimoney of Faguni Soy P.W.8 that she had sustained injuries when the appellant had assaulted her, is further corroborated by the medical evidence and she had sustained incised wound injuries on her right side of chest, breast and forearm. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that the prosecution has been able to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim has caused the homicidal death of the deceased. The prosecution has further been able to prove that the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim had given several Balua blows to the informant Faguni Soy with the intention to cause her death, due to which, she sustained incised wound injuries on the vital parts of the body. The prosecution has further been able to prove that the appellant Adikar Pareya @ Bhim has also assaulted the witness Sita Kerketta P.W.2 by Balua, causing grievous injury on her right forearm. Learned Trial Court has rightly come to the finding regarding the guilt of the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.
Decision
Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of. (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) (Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 15/03/2024 BS/-