). ……… Laxman Sinku, S/o Sri Lanka Sinku, R/o Village- Hessapee Tola- Baiburu, P.O v. ……… …
Case Details
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 623 of 2016 ….….. (Against the judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No.93 of 2015). ……… Laxman Sinku, S/o Sri Lanka Sinku, R/o Village- Hessapee Tola- Baiburu, P.O. & P.S.- Jagannathpur, District- West Singhbhum The State of Jharkhand Versus ……… ….. Appellant …. Respondent For the Appellant For the State
Legal Reasoning
10. From the evidence of these three witnesses, we find that they had seen the occurrence and there is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. They had categorically stated that it is this appellant, who had struck the deceased on her neck with a knife and committed the murder. The fact that the assault was on the neck has been substantiated by the medical evidence of the Doctor, which has been dealt with in the earlier paragraph. Further, the presence of P.W.-1, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 is established from their respective evidence as 4 P.W.-1 stated that P.W.-4 was also present at the time of occurrence and had seen the assault and similarly P.W.-4 also stated that P.W.-1 was also present. P.W.-3, who is the informant had also corroborated the statement of P.W.-1 and P.W.-4 to the extent that he was informed by these prosecution witnesses about the incident. There is nothing to disbelieve the statement of these witnesses. We therefore, conclude that these are the eye witnesses. Thus, we find that the prosecution has able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has correctly appreciated all the evidence and the convicted the appellant and sentenced him. 11. We find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. 12. The judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. Case No.93 of 2015 needs no interference, thus, is affirmed. 13. Let Trial Court Records along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the concerned trial court forthwith. (Ananda Sen, J.) (Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated 14/10/2024 NAFR /R.S./ Cp 03. 5
Arguments
: Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee, Advocate : Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, AddI. Public Prosecutor ----------- PRESENT Sri Ananda Sen, J. Sri Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. J U D G M E N T 03/ 14.10.2024 By Court: Heard, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Chandrajit Mukherjee and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, AddI. Public Prosecutor. 2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the conviction of the sole appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide judgment of conviction dated 12.04.2016 and order of sentence dated 13.04.2016, whereby he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that P.W.-3 cannot be said to be an eye witness to the occurrence as there is material contradiction in his statement. He further stated that murder weapon which is a dagger has not been recovered. There was land dispute between the parties, thus, there is high probability of false implication of the appellant in this case. The other witnesses i.e. P.W.- 1 and P.W.-4 also cannot be said to be eye witness, if their evidence is examined properly. The alleged blood stained soil, which was seized by the police has not been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, which is fatal for the prosecution. The prosecution only on the basis 1 of the evidence that there was quarrel earlier between the deceased and the appellant, the appellant could not have been convicted in this case. 4. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is eye witness to the said occurrence who saw this appellant giving knife blow on the deceased, resulting in her death. The witnesses have also stated that there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased, while celebrating the Maghe festival and to take revenge this appellant has committed the murder and when there is an eye witness to the occurrence of murder, the appellant cannot be acquitted. 5. The F.I.R. was registered on 01.03.2015 on the basis of the farbeyan of informant (Damu Gagrai), P.W.-3, who had stated that he proceeded from his house to participate in Maghe festival, when he could come to know that his mother was assaulted by this appellant by knife and she was murdered. The informant thereafter reached at the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his mother. He mentioned in the fardbeyan that Mukta Kui and Mecho Biruly had seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased. 6. On the aforesaid fardbeyan, Jagannathpur P.S. Case No.11 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The police after investigation filed chargesheet against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thereafter the Court took cognizance and committed the case to the Court of Sessions. As the appellant pleaded not guilty, charge was framed under Section 302 of IPC and he was put on trial. Eight witnesses have been examined in this case, who are as follows:- P.W.-1 Mukta Budiuli P.W.-2 Gurucharan Sinku P.W.-3 Damu Gagrai, informant of this case P.W.-4 Mecho Biruly P.W.-5 Budharam Sinku P.W.-6 Jai Singh Gagrai P.W.-7 Dr. Braj Kishore Pandey P.W.-8 Rameshwar Ram, Investigating Officer 2 8. The following documents were also exhibited by the prosecution:- Exhibit-1 signature of P.W.-2 on fardbeyan Exhibit-1/1 signature of P.W.-2 on inquest report Exhibit-1/2 signature of P.W.-5 on fardbeyan Exhibit-2 signature of P.W.-2 on seizure list Exhibit-2/1 signature of Lanka Sinku on seizure list Exhibit-3 Postmortem report Exhibit-4 Fardbeyan Exhibit-5 Endorsement on fardbeyan Exhibit-6 Formal F.I.R. Exhibit-7 Inquest Report Exhibit-8 Seizure List Exhibit-9 Memo of arrest of accused Laxman Sinku. 9. To prove the homicidal death, the prosecution has examined P.W.-7, who is the Doctor. He conducted the postmortem of the deceased, who was aged about 72 years and found the following antemortem injuries:- “External finding:- (i)Lacerated wound on anterior aspect of neck size 6 c.m. x 8 c.m. x 6 cm. with cut wound with clear margin. Internal findings:- All vital structures of neck like skin, muscle, nuro vascular structures including thyroid and thyroid cartilage lost, chest, lungs- NAD, Spleen- NAD, CVS- All chambers empty, stomach- empty. Cause of death- Haemorrhage and shock caused by cutting edge of heavy object. From the evidence of Doctor, we find that the assault was by sharp weapon having cutting edge and the cause of death is haemorrhage and shock. The lacerated wound is on the neck and all the vital structure of the neck like skin, muscle, nuro vascular structures including thyroid and thyroid cartilage was lost. From the above evidence, it is clear that the assault was of such a magnitude that it led to the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has been able to prove the fact that the death is homicidal. The main witnesses in this case are P.W.-1, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 and they are the eye witnesses to the said occurrence. P.W.-1 (Mukta Budiuli) has stated that about 03.00 P.M., this appellant with knife has murdered the deceased by striking on her neck. She further stated that she and Mecho Biruly had seen the 3 occurrence. She stated that there was some dispute between the deceased and the appellant as a result of which the incident had occurred. In her cross-examination, she admitted that she had seen the occurrence while she was returning from the field after easing herself. There is nothing in her cross-examination of disbelieve her. P.W.-4 (Mecho Biruly) stated that the deceased was killed in front of her house at 03.00 P.M. The appellant with knife assaulted the deceased on neck resulting in her death. She admitted that she had seen the occurrence and Mukta Budiuli (P.W.-1) was also there. She also stated that Mukta Budiuli had informed the son of the deceased, Damu Gagrai. In her cross-examination, she confirmed that she was present at the place of occurrence. Her testimony was not shaken in cross-examination. P.W.-5 (Budharam Sinku) is also an eye witness. This witness has stated that when this witness was returning at 03.00 P.M. he reached near the house of Budhani Budiuli, he saw that the appellant stopped the deceased and with the help of knife assaulted the deceased on her neck. The appellant was caught and was kept tied there. Thereafter they went to the house of Damu Gagrai and informed him about the incident. He admitted that he had signed the fardbeyan as witness and his signature was marked as Exhibit- 1/2. He admitted that police had seized the blood stain soil, for which seizure list was prepared and was signed by Lanka Sinku and village- Munda, Gurucharan Sinku, which were marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/1. There is nothing in the cross-examination to disbelieve him.