Gopi Hembrom v. The State of Jharkhand
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 20.02.2019 and order of sentence dated 21.02.2019 passed by Sri Shyam Nandan Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 70/2010] Taklu Hembrom .... Versus ..... Appellant The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent With Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019 Gopi Hembrom ..... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ...... Respondent ------ PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019 For the Appellant : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Adv. ------- For the State In Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P For the Appellant : Mrs. Amrita Banerjee Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P By Court: Heard Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019, Mrs. Amrita Banerjee Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019 and opposed by Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl. P.P as well as Mr. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, A.P.P. 2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 20.02.2019 (sentence passed on 21.02.2019) by Sri Shyam Nandan Tiwari, learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 70/2010 whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal code and have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in case of default of payment of fine, the appellants are to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of six months. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 05.10.2008 at about 10:30 A.M., the informant namely Sabita Kunkal was sitting in her courtyard and her husband Jagarnath Prasad was dressing up for going to Noamundi at which point of time, Pandu Hembrom, Kanu Hembrom, Taklu Hembrom (Appellant), Gopi Hembrom (Appellant) and Roya Hembrom came to her house and asked her about the whereabouts of her husband. She had disclosed that her husband is inside the house and in the meantime the husband of the informant came out of the courtyard at which Pandu Hembrom started abusing him. She has further stated that the said Pandu Hembrom after vilifying the husband of the informant for causing accident with a motor-cycle had started committing assault upon her husband and he was joined by the other accused persons. The informant had raised an alarm and in the meantime, her husband tried to flee away and when he reached near the house of the accused – Pandu Hembrom, all the five accused persons caught hold of him and forcibly took him towards the bushes, where he was subjected to assault and in the meantime Pandu Hembrom with a knife like instrument had assaulted her husband on the head and neck. At the time of such assault, Kanu Hembrom and Gopi Hembrom had caught hold of the hands of the husband of the informant whereas Taklu Hembrom and Roya Hembrom had caught hold of his legs. The informant out of fear hid herself behind the bushes and she had seen the entire incident. When the accused persons fled away, the informant came out of the bushes and saw that her husband has died. She thereafter rushed to the house of her mother-in-law and disclosed the entire incident to her. The reason for the occurrence is that about three months back, Pandu Hembrom had taken a loan of Rs. 2,000/- from the deceased and whenever the deceased asked for the said amount, he was threatened and on account of such reason, the accused persons had committed assault upon the deceased. 2 4. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Noamundi P. S. Case No. 48 of 2008 was instituted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of I.P.C. against five accused persons. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. after which cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S. T. No. 70 of 2010 (S 1). Charge was framed under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case. 6. P.W.1 Savita Kunkal is the informant who has stated that the incident is of 2 years back at about 10.00 a.m. when she and her husband were present in the house, at which point of time Pandu Hembrom, Kanu Hembrom, Roya Hembrom, Taklu Hembrom (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019) and Gopi Hembrom (appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019) had come and started quarrelling with her husband with respect to some monetary transaction. She has stated that Kanu Hembrom had tried to press the neck of her husband, as a result of which he fell down. When her husband got up and tried to flee away, the accused persons had assaulted him with stones and Pandu Hembrom, with a sharp cutting weapon, had assaulted her husband, as a result of which he died at the spot. She, out of fear, had hid in the bushes and had seen the entire incident of assault. After the assault, the accused persons fled away. She thereafter informed the incident to her mother-in-law who lives near the station and thereafter she and her mother-in- law had gone to the Police Station after which the Police had come and had recorded her Fardbayan. She has also stated that two months prior to the incident Pandu Hembrom had taken a loan of Rs. 2000/- from her husband and when he had demanded the return of the money, he was subjected to assault which resulted in his death. 3 In cross-examination, she has deposed that the monetary transaction was not done in her presence. When the accused persons had come she and her husband were sitting near the door. 7. P.W.2 Jaypal Prasad has stated that on 05.10.2008 at around 11.00 a.m., he was informed by his mother about a scuffle taking place between Jagarnath Prasad and the accused Pandu Hembrom at which he rushed to Gundijoda village but he could not find anyone in the house. While he was returning to Noamundi, he saw a Police jeep coming and he thereafter returned back to Gundijoda and at a distance of 100-150 yards he found the dead body of Jagarnath Prasad. At the place of occurrence no one was present and none of the neighbours could disclose anything relating to the occurrence. The deceased was his own brother. He has proved his signature on the Fardbayan which has been marked as Ext.1. The informant had disclosed to the Police in his presence about the accused persons who had committed the murder of her husband. The reason of the occurrence was non-returning of Rs. 2000 which was given to Pandu Hembrom by the deceased. In cross-examination he has re-iterated that when he had returned back to the village, he could find no one else present. 8. P.W.3 Palang Kui Chatar is the mother of the deceased who has stated that on the date of the incident, she was informed about the same by her daughter-in-law. Her daughter-in-law had also disclosed the name of the assailants and she had also stated about being informed by her daughter-in-law with respect to the cause of the incident regarding the loan of Rs. 2000 which was given by the deceased to Pandu Hembrom. In cross-examination he has stated that the monetary transaction as well as the commission of assault was all disclosed to him by the informant. 4 9. P.W.4 Mukundia Hembrom has stated that he had come to know about the murder of Jagarnath Prasad from his brother Jaypal Prasad, at which he had also gone to the Police Station. The wife of Jagarnath had disclosed to him about the incident and the persons taking part in the murder. 10. P.W.5 Mithu Gope has stated that on the next day in the morning he had come to know about the accused persons having committed the murder of Jagarnath Prasad. 11. P.W.6 Satyanarayan Prasad is the uncle of the deceased who has stated that he was on his duty when he was informed about the murder of the husband of the informant and when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he had found Jagarnath Prasad lying dead. The informant had disclosed to the Police regarding the amount of Rs. 2000 taken by Pandu Hembrom from the deceased and the incident occurred due to non-returning of the said amount. He has proved his signature in the Inquest Report which has been marked as Ext. 2. In cross-examination he has deposed that the Police had not recorded his statement. 12. P.W.7 Dr. Nand Kumar Pandey was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 06.10.2008 and he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Jagarnath Prasad and had found the following injuries:- “Rigor mortis present in both upper and lower limbs. External: (i) (ii) Deep penetrating wound in neck front size 3”x ½ “x Lacerated wound lower region front of neck 2”x ½ “. 4” deep. (iii) Cut injury on front of neck size 2”x ½”x 3” deep. (iv) Lacerated wound on chest upper part size 4”x 2”. (v) (vi) Lacerated wound on forehead size 3”x 4”. (vii) Injury on face blackish colour. Injury on back – (a) Neck – lacerated wound 2”x ½ “. (b) Loin – lacerated wound 3”x ½ “. Internal Dissection: Head and neck – intact. Thorax – fracture all limbs. 5 Heart – right full, left empty. Lungs – pale. Stomach – undigested food present Kidney and bladder – intact.” The cause of death has been opined by him to be deep injury in neck by sharp and penetrating weapon and crush injury on thorax by heavy and hard weapon and the death was caused due to bleeding and airway obstruction. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit 2. In cross-examination, he has deposed that injury might have been caused by more than one sharp edged weapon. 13. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied the allegations levelled against them by the witnesses. 14. It has been submitted by Mr. Sabyasanchi, learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019 that there is a contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 with her Fardbayan. It has been stated that as per the Post-Mortem Report two knives were used but as per the evidence of P.W.1, only one knife was used in committing the assault. It has been submitted that it was Pandu Hembrom who was the person who was primarily involved in the commission of the murder and the appellant has been implicated only on account of his presence at the time of the incident. 15. Learned counsel has submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and the place of occurrence has not been proved. Though it has been alleged that stones and knives were used in the commission of the murder, but none of the said articles were seized from the place of occurrence. Mr. Sabyasanchi has also submitted that the distance between the place of occurrence and the Railway Station to which the informant had rushed to inform her mother-in-law, has also not been established. While referring to the evidence of P.W.7, it has been submitted that the injury could also be caused by falling on the ground. He has thus 6 submitted that since there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, the appellant deserves the benefit of doubt. 16. Mrs. Amrita Banerjee Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019 apart from adopting the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019, has submitted that the appellant did not share a common intention with the other accused persons including Pandu Hembrom. She has drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Submission has been advanced that the circumstances which led to the incident had not been put to the accused for his explanation. 17. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the lower court records. 18. The incident which led to the institution of the First Information Report was of the accused persons entering into the house of the informant, quarrelling with the husband of the informant and starting a scuffle, as a result of which her husband tried to flee away but he was apprehended and was assaulted by various means which ultimately resulted in his death. The informant who has been examined as P.W.1 is the sole eye-witness to the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals about both the appellants taking an active part in the commission of the murder and though Pandu Hembrom has been attributed to have given knife blows upon her husband, but at the same time the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 522 of 2019 was said to have assaulted the deceased with a stone while the appellant in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 869 of 2019 was also present along with the rest accused persons and they had taken part in facilitating Pandu Hembrom in giving knife blows upon the deceased. 19. It is no doubt true that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and certain infirmities have been pointed out 7 by the learned counsel for the appellants with respect to the defence having been prejudiced on account of such non- examination, but when we consider the entire scenario especially with respect to the evidence of P.W.1, there cannot be any doubt to come to a conclusion that both the appellants had taken an active part in committing the murder of the husband of the informant. Though it has been submitted that the appellant did not share any common intention, but such submission appears to be frivolous and is beyond the records as the evidence of P.W.1 not only is consistent with her Fardbayan but also clearly reveals about all the accused persons sharing a common intention by entering into the house of the informant, assaulting the husband of the informant and thereafter ensuring that he does not live to see another day. Thus, the entire gamut of the allegations levelled by the informant in her Fardbayan seems to have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution and the learned trial court was therefore justified in convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 302/34 IPC and consequently to sentence them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 20. We, in the circumstances noted above, do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned trial
Decision
court and consequently we dismiss both these appeals. Pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of. 21. Since the appellant in Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.522 of 2019 is on bail, he is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out his sentence. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) (Deepak Roshan, J.) THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Dated: 23rd April 2024 Shamim-Preet/NAFR 8