The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No.469 of 2019 [Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 11.03.2019, passed by learned District & Addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, in Sessions Case No.319 of 2018 (arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.111 of 2018 and G.R. No.628 of 2018)]. Raju Singh @ Barka, S/o Kalika Singh, R/o Dundibag, Near Daru Bhatthi, P.O. + P.S. Bokaro Steel City, District- Bokaro. Versus ..Appellant The State of Jharkhand. ….. ..Respondent SRI ANANDA SEN, J. P R E S E N T
Legal Reasoning
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ….. For the Appellant For the State For the Informant : : : Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shree Nivas Roy, Advocate Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate ….. 18.10.2024. JUDGMENT By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the informant. 1. The instant Criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 11.03.2019, passed by learned District & addl. Sessions Judge-II, Bokaro, in Sessions Case No.319 of 2018 (arising out of Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No.111 of 2018 and G.R. No.628 of 2018)] whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life and also a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- under Section 302 of the IPC and further on non-payment of the same, to undergo RI for two years. 2. The F.I.R. is at the instance of the wife of the deceased [who is P.W. 5] in which she stated that as it was the Sunday holiday, her husband who works under the contractor had gone to the house of the contractor for discussing the work of next day with the contractor when this appellant also reached there. It is stated that some disputes and differences arose between the appellant the deceased. The appellant then went to his house and brought sword and indiscriminately assaulted the deceased, as a result of which, he sustained 1 several injuries. The informant tried to save her husband, but he was dragged by the appellant and took him inside the house and also assaulted and committed murder. The body was badly mutilated and people arrived after hearing hue and cry. On the basis of the 'fardbeyan' of the informant, the Police instituted First Information Report being Bokaro Steel City P.S. Case No. 111 of 2018 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant/accused. On investigation, the Police found the case to be true and submitted charge- sheet and cognizance was taken and appellant was put on trial for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In order to prove the case, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution in this case who are P.W.1 to P.W. 9. P.W.1 (Khusboo Devi, P.W.2 (Sushma Devi), P.W.3 (Tara Devi), P.W.4 (Ramesh Das), P.W.5 (Gita Devi, informant of the case), P.W.6 (Jitendra Singh), P.W.7 (Mahavir Munda), P.W.8 (Dr. Vikash Kumar) and P.W.9 (Prem Kumar Rajak, Investigating officer of the case). Learned counsel for the appellant argues that though P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W. 3 and P.W.4 claimed to be the eye witnesses of the case, but if their testimonies are read in its totality, the only conclusion which can be reached is that they have not seen the occurrence rather they had reached the place of occurrence after the incidence had already occurred. He further submits that there is no motive assigned to commit murder of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State assisted by learned counsel for the informant opposed the prayer. He submits that P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence who have narrated the manner of assault which is corroborated by medical evidence. It is argued that the defence has not been able to demolish the statement of the eye witnesses in cross-examination. So far as the motive is concerned, he submits that there is direct eye witness of the murder and as such, motive loses 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. its force. On this ground, he prays that this appeal be dismissed. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire materials on record. P.W.8 is the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination on the 2 person of deceased and he exhibited post-mortem report as Ext. 1. He stated that post-mortem report is prepared by Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha and he recognised the handwriting and signature and as per him the deceased died due to shock, haemorrhage, cardio-respiratory due to multiple injuries. He stated that Dr. Ajay Kumar Sinha was suffering from cancer and undergoing treatment at Pune and he had worked with him and could identify the handwriting and signature of the doctor. In cross-examination, he admits that he did not assist the doctor when post-mortem of the deceased was conducted. 11. The post-mortem report is Ext.1. As per the Ext.1, we find several sharp- cutting injuries on the person of the deceased. Doctor while conducting the post-mortem examination found the following injuries:- External :- A sharp cut injury present on right side of forehead of size 3”x1/2”x Bone deep A sharp cut injury present on left side of forehead of size 1½ ”x1/2”x skin deep. A sharp cut injury present on neck of size 6”x 1½ ”x4½” deep. All skin, muscles of neck trachea, larynx, vital include all vessels, cervical vertebrae 2, 3, 4 were cut all this injury. A sharp cut present on right arm of size 3” x ½” x Skindeep. A cut injury with laceration present on right wrist joint and right thumb area and skin, muscles, bone at wrist joint were cut (divided). A sharp cut injury present on right thigh (Medial side) of size 9”x4”xBone deep. All skin muscles and blood vessels divided in this wound. A cut (sharp) injury present on left knee joint area and patella is separated from joint of size 5 ½” x 2 ½” x Bone deep. A cut injury (sharp) present on left palm (medial size) and cut all skin and muscles wound size was 6”x1½ ”x Bone deep. A sharp cut injury present on left forearm all at medial of size 4”x½ ” x Bone deep. A sharp cut injury present of left forearm upper-end of size 3”x1½ ”x Bone deep. Fracture of left ulna bone was present. All the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hit by heavy and sharp object and death was homicidal in nature. 12. P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 are the witnesses of the occurrence and they all have consistently stated that this appellant with the sword assaulted the deceased indiscriminately on the several parts of the body. There is nothing in their evidence or in the cross-examination to disbelieve them. Defence has failed to demolish the veracity of their account. 13. P.W. 5 is the informant and is also an eye-witness. She also reiterated what she has stated in the F.I.R. She also stated that this appellant had assaulted the deceased with the sword indiscriminately. The ocular evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 5 is corroborated by the medical report of the doctor. 14. The defence witnesses have stated that they heard that thief was caught in the locality and he was being assaulted. Later on, the identity of thief was disclosed to the deceased, though the informant has stated in her deposition 3 that there are several cases against the deceased for committing theft, but even from the evidence of D.Ws. the fact which has been established that the deceased was assaulted which resulted into his death. Though the D.Ws. did not state that who has assaulted the deceased, but the fact of assault on the deceased has been admitted by them also. 15. The P.Ws. have consistently and emphatically stated that it was this appellant who has committed assault on the deceased with the sword, as a result of which, he died. Even if we accept the defence version that the deceased was thief then also the fact which has been established by the prosecution is that he was assaulted and done to death by this appellant by sword. The medical evidence and ocular evidence also corroborates the same. All these facts and evidence have been considered by the learned Trial Court and after considering the same, in detail, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and convicted the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him for life. 16. We find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as all the evidence of this case has been considered by the learned Trial Court. Considering the facts what has been discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, this Criminal appeal stands dismissed and judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is hereby affirmed. Since we have already dismissed the appeal on merits after hearing,
Decision
I.A. No. 4359 of 2024 stands disposed of. Pending I.A, if any, is disposed of. Let T.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 18.10.2024. Pawan/ 4