The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.672 of 2002 ----- (Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2000/ 341 of 2001) ---- 1.Sukar Mahato, Son of Maharaj Mahato, 2.Johari Mahato, Son of Maharaj Mahato, 3.Mahendra Mahato, Son of Sukar Mahato, All residents of Village – Bandhua, Kurum Tarh, P.S. Mohanpur, District Deoghar….Appellant(s). The State of Jharkhand Versus ------ … Respondent(s). PRESENT SRI ANANDA SEN, J. SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ------ : Ms. Vani Kumari, Amicus Curiae : Mr. Tarun Kumar, A.P.P. For the Respondent(s) For the Appellant(s) …...... J U D G M E N T 25.11.2024 By Court: We have heard, learned Amzicus Curiae appearing for the
Legal Reasoning
appellants and learned counsel for the State at length. 2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.08.2002 passed in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2000/ 341 of 2001 whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar, convicted all the appellants under Sections 323, 324, 325 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. No separate sentence was passed under Sections 323/324/325 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The case of the prosecution as per the fardbeyan of informant Shanti Devi (PW 8), who is wife of the deceased is that on 18-09-1999 at about 7:00 P.M. when she was talking to her husband Jhagru Mahto, 1 son Mahadeo Yadav and daughter Meena Devi, at that time her brother-in-law (Bhaisur) Sukar Mahato along with his son Mahendra Mahato and Johari Mahato came there and assaulted her along with the deceased and her son. She further stated that Sukar Mahato gave a tangi blow on the head of the deceased, following this, Johari Mahato gave several Bhala blows on his head. Then Mahendra Mahato assaulted him by sword due to which he died on the spot. She also said that when she and her son intervened, Sukar Mahato gave tangi blow on her head and assaulted her and her son was also attacked on the head by the accused persons. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan, Mohanpur P.S. Case No. 180 of 1999, under Sections 341/323/324/325/448/326/302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. 5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against all the appellants and on the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court of Session where charges were framed under Sections 323, 324, 325, 326, 327, 341, 448, 307/34 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since accused pleaded not guilty, the trial proceeded. 6. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and also one court witness was produced who are as follows :- i. PW1 :- Dhaneshar Mahto ii. PW2 :- Tipan Mahto iii. PW3 :- Gauri Shankar Yadav iv. PW4 :- Lilu Yadav v. PW5 :- Binod Kumar Malvia vi. PW6 :- Sant Lal Yadav vii. PW7 :- Mahadeo Mahto (son of the deceased) viii. PW8:- Shanti Devi (Informant) ix. PW9:- Prem Nath (I.O) x. PW10:- Dr. Akhilesh Pratap Singh xi. PW11:- Bamdeo Raut CW1:- Ganesh Prasad Shah Some documents and material were exhibited which are : 2 i.Ext.1 – Signature of PW1 on Inquest Report ii.Ext.2 – Signature of PW2 on Seizure List iii. Ext.2/1– Signature of PW3 on Seizure List iv.Ext. 1/1- Signature of IO on inquest report v.Ext.3 – Signature of PW3 on fardbeyan vi.Ext.4- Fardbeyan vii.Ext.5- Seizure List viii. Ext.6- Post-Mortem Examination Report ix.Ext.7- Injury Report x.Ext.7/1- Injury Report xi.Ext.7/2- Injury Report xii.Ext.8- Letter of officer in-charge xiii.Ext.9- S.D. Entry Material Exhibit I – Tangi Material Exhibit II – Bhala Material Exhibit III - Katar Material Exhibit IV – Blood smeared soil 7. The learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submits that there are discrepancies in the prosecution case as the daughter of the informant who is the eye witness of the incidence has not been examined. She further submits that the ’lathi’ (stick) which was used in the assault, as claimed by one of the prosecution witness, has not been produced as an evidence. She further submits that there is delay in lodging the FIR. She further submits that no motive was shown from the prosecution side. On these grounds acquittal is sought for. 8. The learned counsel for the state has defended the judgement of conviction and sentence of the learned trial court. He submits that the prosecution through Exhibit 6 (P.M.R) has been able to show that deceased died a homicidal death. The learned counsel further submitted that the prosecution through eye witnesses, injured witnesses and postmortem report of the deceased has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, thus, this appeal should be allowed. 9. We find that homicidal death of the deceased has been objectively established by the post-mortem report (Exhibit-6) prepared by PW-10. The Doctor found the following antemortem injuries- 3 “I. Punctured wound 1" x 1/2 " x bone deep on left of forehead with fracture of under lying frontal bone. II. Punctured wound 1" x 1/2 " x bone deep on right side of forehead with fracture of under lying frontal bone. III. Incised wound 6" x 1/2" x bone deep on right side of head with fracture of underline parietal bone. IV. Incised wound 3" x 1/2" x bone deep on left side of head with fracture of underline parietal bone. V. Lacerated wound 2"x 1" x bone deep on top of head. VI. Lacerated wound 1/2"x 1/2" x bone deep on the root of the nose with fracture of nasal bones. VII. Fracture of left radius and ulna near wrist. VIII. 3 abrasions sizes- 1/2"x 1/2", 1/2"x 1/4" and 1/4"x 1/4" on front of left leg near knee. IX. 3 bruises of sizes 3" x 1/2", 2 1/2"x 1/2" and 1" x 1" on chest.” Doctor observed that the injuries were caused by piercing weapon (injury no. I & II), sharp cutting weapon (injury no. III & IV) and by hard and blunt substance (injury no. V- IX). The Doctor opined that the cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of the above antemortem injuries. This clearly proves the homicidal death. 10. PW 1 and PW 2 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence as on hearing hulla when they reached the place of occurrence, they saw these appellants assaulting the deceased and committing his murder. Their evidence supports the prosecution version and there is nothing to disbelieve them. 11. PW 3 has been declared hostile. PW 4 and PW 6 are the hearsay witnesses. PW 5 is an inquest witness. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer of the case. PW 11 is the witness who produces the material exhibit before the court. CW 1 is the court witness who exhibited the station diary entry no. 456 date 19.09.1999. 12. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses we find that there are some eye witness and injured witness. The testimony of injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than other witnesses. The injured who has sustained injuries has given a clear picture of the occurrence. We find them cogent and reliable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jodhan vs State of MP, reported in (2015) 11 SCC 52 has held 4 that a testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than other witnesses. In the aforesaid case, the court has observed that - “28. Tested on the backdrop of the aforesaid enunciation of law, we are unable to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the High Court has fallen into error by placing reliance on the evidence of the said prosecution witnesses. The submission that when other witnesses have turned hostile, the version of these witnesses also should have been discredited does not commend acceptance, for there is no rule of evidence that the testimony of the interested witnesses is to be rejected solely because other independent witnesses who have been cited by the prosecution have turned hostile. Additionally, we may note with profit that these witnesses had sustained injuries and their evidence as we find is cogent and reliable. A testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal than other witnesses. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. [Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P., (2010) 10 SCC 259 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 1262] , it has been observed that: (SCC p. 271, para 28) “28. The question of the weight to be attached to the evidence of a witness that was himself injured in the course of the occurrence has been extensively discussed by this Court. Where a witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as he is a witness that comes with a built-in guarantee of his presence at the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in order to falsely implicate someone.” It has been also reiterated that convincing evidence is required to discredit an injured witness. Be it stated, the opinion was expressed by of Bihar [Ramlagan Singh v. State of Bihar, (1973) 3 SCC 881 : 1973 , Malkhan Singh v. State of U.P. [Malkhan SCC Singh v. State of U.P., (1975) 3 SCC 311 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 919] , Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan [Vishnu v. State of Rajasthan, (2009) 10 SCC 477 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 302] , Balraje v. State of Maharashtra [Balraje v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 6 SCC 673 : (2010) 3 SCC (Cri) 211] and Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 9 SCC 719 : (2010) 1 SCC (Cri) 107] .” upon Ramlagan Singh v. State (Cri) 563] reliance placing 13. P.W. 7 is an injured witness who is the son of the deceased. P.W. 8 is the wife of the deceased who is also an injured witness. Both witnesses have supported the prosecution case. They have been consistent in their statement that Johari Mahato, Sukar Mahato and Mahendra Mahato gave Bhala, Tangi and Sword blow respectively to the deceased. The fact that they have sustained injuries proves the fact that they were present at the place of occurrence. 14. On the basis of the testimony of witnesses, it is established that Jhagru Mahato died a homicidal death due to haemorrhage and shock. 5 Statements made by PW 7 and PW 8 is supported by the medical evidence. 15. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this court does not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 30.08.2002 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Deoghar in Sessions Trial No. 99 of 2000/ 341 of 2001. The same is affirmed as the Trial Court has considered all these aspects including the testimony of the eye witness
Decision
and arrived at a correct finding. 16. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal is dismissed. 17. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of. 18. As the appellants are on bail, they are directed to surrender before the Trial Court. If the appellants do not surrender, the trial court is directed to take appropriate step as per law. 19. We had requested Ms. Vani Kumari, the learned counsel and appointed her as learned Amicus Curiae to assist this Court. Considering her assistance, we direct the Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee to pay remuneration of Rs.7,500/- to Ms. Vani Kumari, the learned Amicus Curiae. 20. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith. (ANANDA SEN, J.) (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated : 25.11.2024 NAFR/ R.S./ Cp 03. 6