High Court · 2014
Case Details
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) NO. 134 OF 2015 ---- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION DATED 20TH NOVEMBER 2014 AND ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 21ST NOVEMBER, 2014 PASSED BY THE JUDICIAL COMMISSIONER IV, RANCHI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO.922 OF 2013 ARISING OUT OF LAPUNG POLICE STATION CASE NO.31 OF 2013 [G.R. NO.4630 OF 2013]. ---- Dharma Munda S/o late Bhaso Munda, resident of Village Danekera, Rugu Toli, PO PS Lapung, District Ranchi. The State of Jharkhand -versus- ---- … … Appellant Respondent For the Appellant : For the Respondent : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ---- SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ---- J U D G M E N T Date : 14th October, 2024 By Court
Legal Reasoning
On overall weighing of the evidence on record, we find that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, in view of direct evidence of the eye witnesses corroborated by the medical evidence and the investigating officer implicating the appellant. 22. Thus, finding no merit in this appeal, calling for any interference by this Court with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, we hereby dismiss this appeal. The judgment of conviction dated 20th November, 2015 and order of sentence dated 21st November, 2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 922 of 2013 are hereby affirmed. 23. 24.
Arguments
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of 2. conviction dated 20th November, 2014 and order of sentence dated 21st November, 2014 passed by the Judicial Commissioner IV, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No.922 of 2013 arising out of Lapung Police Station Case No.31 of 2013 (G.R. No.4630 of 2013), whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that there cannot be any eye witness to the occurrence as it was dark in the night and there was no source of light, where a person can see the occurrence and identify the culprit who had assaulted the deceased and committed her murder. He submits that the informant in his cross examination has clearly stated that it was dark in the night and when he reached there he only saw the dead body. In his cross examination he stated that at that time he went 1 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015 there alone and thereafter called P.W.1 and P.W.4, which means that these witnesses are also not the eye witness to the occurrence. Further, the distance between the house of P.W.1 and the place of occurrence is 100 feet, thus, it is improbable that he could have witnessed the occurrence at that dark night. He submits that these facts were not appreciated by the Trial Court. He further argues that murder of mother by a son for denying food cannot be said to be a motive for such crime. On these grounds, learned counsel submits that it is a fit case where the appellant should be acquitted. 4. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State submits that the Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant on the basis of evidence available on record. He submits that there are two eye witnesses to the occurrence, who gave a clear picture of the occurrence and defence was not able to shake credibility of those eye witnesses. Furthermore, the evidence of these two eye witnesses on the point of assault also finds corroboration from medical evidence. The other witnesses have also corroborated the fact that the appellant was roaming with an axe in his hand. He, thus, submits that there is no merit in the appeal preferred by the appellant and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence need no interference by this Court. 5. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of the informant Sanika Munda recorded by the S.I. Kumar Saryu Anand, Officer- in-Charge, Lapung Police Station on 22.08.2013 at 11.00 hours, wherein he has narrated that his step mother (deceased) with her son Dharma Munda (appellant) was living separately in the village. Last night at about 03.00 a.m., hearing hue and cry when he reached near the house of Paltu Munda, he saw that the appellant was assaulting the deceased (informant’s step mother) with an axe (tangi) and the deceased was lying on the floor. Blood was oozing heavily from her head. Thereafter taking help of nearby people, he somehow removed the appellant and asked him, on which the appellant told that the deceased (his mother) was not giving food to him, that is why he has assaulted on her head with axe (tangi). The informant could see that the deceased had died as she had heavy injuries on her head and on both of her ears. After assaulting, the appellant with the axe in his hand went towards the eastern side. Thereafter the informant took the dead body. 6. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan, Lapung Police Station 2 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015 Case No.31 of 2013 was registered for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Police, after completion of investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed for trial. Charge was framed under one head for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which was read over and explained to the appellant. Since the appellant pleaded not guilty, he was put on trial. 7. To bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution had examined 8 (eight) witnesses, namely P.W.1 Mansa Munda, P.W.2 Jogia Munda, P.W.3 Sanika Munda (informant), P.W.4 Paltu Munda, P.W.5 Dr. Binod Kumar Rabi, P.W.6 Mangal Munda, P.W.7 Ladho Munda and P.W.8 Kumar Saryu Anand. The prosecution also produced following documents to substantiate its case, which were marked exhibits:- Exhibit 1 Exhibit 1/1 to 1/2 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 2/1 to 2/2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Exhibit 5 Exhibit 6 Exhibit 7 & 8 Exhibit 9 Signature of Mansa Munda on Inquest Report Signature of Mansa Munda on Seizure List Signature of Jogia Munda on Inquest Report Signature of Jogia Munda on Seizure List Postmortem Report Fardbeyan Formal F.I.R. Inquest Report Seizure List Relevant line of confessional statement 8. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C wherein he denied the charges. Appellant had not stated anything in his defence and no evidence has been adduced by him in his defence. 9. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments and appreciating the evidences on record, by the judgment of conviction dated 20th November, 2015 and order of sentence dated 21st November, 2015 passed in Sessions Trial No. 922 of 2013, has convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 10. After hearing the parties, to see the involvement of this appellant and veracity of the prosecution case, we have gone through the entire records including the evidence. 11. In this case we find that altogether 8 (eight) witnesses were 3 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015 examined by the prosecution. This is a case where a son has killed his mother by assaulting her with axe (tangi). 12. There are two eye witnesses in this case. Informant Sanika Munda, who has deposed in this case as P.W.3 is one of the eye witnesses to the occurrence. He has stated that he had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with axe. The deceased was lying on the floor and blood was oozing from her head. He stated that it was 03.00 a.m. in the early morning, when on hearing hue and cry he came out of his house and saw that the appellant assaulting the deceased with axe. 13. Another eye witness, i.e., P.W.1 Mansa Munda has also narrated the occurrence in the same manner as stated by the informant- P.W.3. He also stated that on hearing hulla, when he reached near the house of Paltu, he saw the deceased was lying over the ground and the appellant was assaulting her by means of axe. The injury was near the ear and head. This witness had also identified his signature on the inquest report, which was marked Exhibit 1 as also his signatures over two seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits 1/1 and 1/2 respectively. In his cross examination, the defence was not able to extract anything to shake his credibility. 14. P.W.2 Jogia Munda is a hearsay witness. He has proved his signature on the Inquest Report and two seizure lists, which were marked as Exhibits 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. 15. P.W.4 Paltu Munda has, to some extent, corroborated the prosecution case by stating that when he came out of his house on hearing hue and cry, he saw the dead body of the deceased. 16. P.W.5 Dr. Binod Kumar Rabi is the doctor, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injuries: - Abrasions : a) 1 x ½ cm over left cheek. b) 1 x ½ cm over left side of clavicle region c) 2 x 2 cm over back of chest upper part midline. Lacerated wounds: a) 3 x 1 cm x bone deep over right frontal region b) 1 x ½ cm x bone deep and 2 x ½ cm x bone deep over right parietal region c) 3 x 1 cm x soft tissues over right mastoid region. d) 3 x ½ cm x soft tissue over right ear e) 3 x ½ cm x soft tissue over left ear f) 2 x ½ cm x soft tissue over left mastoid region g) 3 x ½ cm x bone deep over right parietal scalp h) 3 x ½ cm x soft tissue over back of right forearm 4 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015 middle part. The doctor had opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem caused by hard and blunt substance and death of the victim was caused due to head injury and the time of death was between 3 hours to 18 hours from the time of post-mortem examination. This witness proved the postmortem report in his writing and signature, which was marked as Exhibit 3. 17. P.W.6 Mangal Munda is not an eye witness. He stated that he had seen the appellant moving with axe in his hand and out of fear he went inside the house. The appellant for some time sat in front of his house and leaving the axe over the straw he went away. This witness had removed the axe so that the appellant do not commit murder of any other person. 18. P.W.7 Lodho Munda has stated that the occurrence is of 22nd August 2013. It was of night. Morning at 04.00 a.m. he saw the dead body of the deceased and also saw the appellant roaming with axe. 19. P.W.8 Kumar Saryu Anand is the investigating officer of this case. He proved the fardbeyan of the informant to be in his writing and signature and also proved the thumb impression of the informant over the fardbeyan, which was marked Exhibit 4. He also proved the endorsement over the same. He also proved the formal FIR, which was marked as Exhibit 5. He proved the Inquest Report, which was marked as Exhibit 6. He also gave description of the place of occurrence with its boundaries. He had proved the seizure list wherein he had seized the blood smeared soil, which was marked as Exhibit 7. He also proved the seizure list wherein he had seized blood stained axe, which was marked as Exhibit 8. He also proved the confessional statement of the appellant, relevant portion whereof was marked as Exhibit 9. He also narrated the entire investigation undertaken by him and also stated that on completion of investigation, he had filed chargesheet No.45/13 dated 29.09.2013 as against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing in the deposition of this witness to show any shortcoming in the investigation conducted by him. 20. On analyzing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that there is direct evidence of two eye witnesses in this case, who gave the clear picture of manner of assault and the weapon used in assault. Their 5 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015 testimony was also corroborated by other witnesses. The defence was not able to shake the credibility of these witnesses. It is also settled now that when there is direct evidence, motive looses its relevance. The investigating officer had also collected materials in course of investigation, which were sufficient to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further, we find that the defence was not able to bring on record anything to shake the credibility of the eye witnesses or anything contrary to the evidence available on record. 21.
Decision
Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated, the 14th October, 2024 NAFR/Kumar/Cp-03 6 Cr. Appeal (DB) 134 of 2015