Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 744 (PAT)

Munni Devi v. State Of Bihar

2000-05-19

A.K.PRASAD, M.Y.EQBAL

body2000
Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 2nd August, 1995 passed by the Vth Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 653/95. These appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. By the aforesaid judgment all the three appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life. 3. The informant Govind Nayak lodged a fardbeyan on 14.5.1993 at about 11.15 a.m., on the basis of the which a criminal case was instituted and the appellants were prosecuted under Sections 302/34, IPC. The prosecution case is that the informant on the aforesaid day lodged a fardbeyan alleging that on the same day he alongwith his mother was in their house and in the meantime all the three appellants came to his house and levelled charges against the mother of the informant for being a witch. Thereafter, the appellant Nandan Nayak and Munni Devi caught hold the mother of PW 8 and appellant Dinesh Nayak stabbed her several times with the dagger. It is alleged by the informant that he tried to resist but the was also threatened by the appellants. The mother of the informant, however, died because of the stab injuries. On hulla the villagers assembled and the accused persons fled away threatening the persons assembled there. Further prosecution story is that the informants father was threatened by the appellant Nandan Nayak that he will kill his wife because she is a witch and she has killed his son. 4. The appellants in defence denied the charges levelled against them and took a plea of false implication in this case. 5. The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses in support of the prosecution case. PW 1 Janki Devi is said to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. She has stated that on the day of occurrence she was in her house when she saw the appellants assaulting Jutri Devi, the deceased. The appellant Nandan Nayak and his wife Munni Devi caught hold of Jutri Devi and his sola, namely, Dinesh Nayak was stabbing her with knife. She further deposed that when the accused persons fled away after committing the murder, she remained silent due to fear and did not tell anybody. She immediately went inside her house and told the members of her family about the occurrence. She further deposed that when the accused persons fled away after committing the murder, she remained silent due to fear and did not tell anybody. She immediately went inside her house and told the members of her family about the occurrence. This witness was cross-examined at length and in her cross-examination she stated that her house was situated at a distance of 10-15 yards from the house of the deceased. She also reiterated the same fact stated in examination-in-chief. 6. Another witness, said to be eyewitness examined by the prosecution, is Kalawati Devi (PW 2). She has stated in her evidence that on the day of occurrence at about 11 a.m., she heard hulla and rushed to the place of occurrence and asked Jutri Devi as to who had assaulted her upon which she replied that Nandan Nayak, Dinesh and Nandans wife had assaulted her. Thereafter, Jutri Devi died at the spot. PW 3 Raju Nayak has stated in evidence that on hulla he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw the accused fleeing away. He further deposed that one of the accused had dagger in his hand while other accused were unarmed. He identified all the accused in the Court. The next witness examined by the prosecution is PW 4 Rosy Kumari, aged about 8 years. She has stated that, she had seen her mother being stabbed by dagger. In her cross-examination, she stated that she had seen the occurrence from the window of the house. She has repeated the same thing in the cross-examination. PW 5 Dukhan Nayak is the husband of the deceased, who has deposed that he was not present at the time of occurrence. He stated that he received information about 1 p.m. on the day about the murder of his wife and immediately returned to his house and found the dead body of his wife lying on the ground. He further deposed that Nandan Nayak and his wife always used to say him that they would commit the murder of his wife because his wife used to do witch-craft. PWs 6 and 7 are the witnesses of inquest of the dead body. PW 8 Gobind Nayak is the informant of the case and is the son of the deceased. This witness narrated the entire story about the murder of his mother. He deposed that, he saw the accused persons assaulting his mother. PWs 6 and 7 are the witnesses of inquest of the dead body. PW 8 Gobind Nayak is the informant of the case and is the son of the deceased. This witness narrated the entire story about the murder of his mother. He deposed that, he saw the accused persons assaulting his mother. He further stated that he was also threatened by the accused persons. This witness further stated that when the accused persons fled away after committing murder of his mother, he called the police, who recorded his fardbeyan. He further stated that a mad dog had bitten the son of the accused Nandan Nayak, out of which he died and for which he used to charge his mother of being a witch. In cross- examination this witness repeated the same evidence given by him in examination-in-chief. PW 9 is the Doctor, who conducted the autopsy of the dead body on 15.5.1993 and found stabbed wound on the left chest and various other knife injuries. Learned Sessions Judge, after going through the entire evidence both oral and documentary and after hearing the parties, has come to a finding that the appellants have committed murder of Jutri Devi and the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for life. 7. Mr. P.S. Dayal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment as being illegal and contrary to facts and circumstances on record. Learned counsel firstly, submitted that in the FIR the informant has not disclosed the name of any person present at the time of occurrence except himself and therefore, the witnesses examined in this case and the eye-witness cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel submitted that even the informant was not the eye-witness of the occurrence. Learned counsel further submitted that PW 1 claimed herself to be the eye-witness but from the evidence it will appear that the conduct of this lady is doubtful. In cross-examination, she has said that at the time of assault no one was present in house. Learned counsel, after referring the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, submitted that each witness had said that he/she was the first person to reach the place of occurrence and none had said about the presence of other. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the evidence of eye-witness itself is self-contradictory. Learned counsel, after referring the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, submitted that each witness had said that he/she was the first person to reach the place of occurrence and none had said about the presence of other. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the evidence of eye-witness itself is self-contradictory. Learned counsel then submitted that the trial Court rightly disbelieved the evidence of PW 2, who claimed to be the eye-witness and before whom the deceased made dying-declaration. Learned counsel also contended that the Sessions Court has committed serious illegality in relying upon the evidence of PW 4, who is a child witness and particularly when she has said in cross-examination that she was caught by her father. Learned counsel then submitted that admittedly the allegation of assault is against one appellant, namely, Dinesh Nayak and two other appellants alleged to have caught hold of the deceased. Moreover, there is no evidence at all with regard to any intention of all the accused persons to commit murder of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, therefore, the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment to all the appellants cannot be sustained in law. 8. Mr. Jhunjhunwala, learned APP, on the other hand, firstly submitted that the evidence of eye-witnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are not named in the FIR. Learned counsel contended that it is well-settled that eye-witnesses even not named in the FIR can be relied upon. Learned counsel then submitted that there is some discrepancies or exaggerations in the evidences but that will not be sufficient to brush aside the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution. Learned counsel lastly, submitted that from the reading of the entire evidence of the witnesses, it has been sufficiently proved that these appellants have committed murder of the deceased and, therefore, it is not a case for interference by this Court. 9. From perusal of the FIR and the evidence of the informant and all other witnesses, it is manifestly clear that there is the consistency in the narration of the occurrence by all the witnesses including the informant. PW 8, Gobind Nayak, who is the informant and also the eyewitness, has disclosed as to how her mother was killed by the accused persons. Although, PW 4 Roji Kumari is a child witness aged 8 years, but her evidence is worth to be relied upon. PW 8, Gobind Nayak, who is the informant and also the eyewitness, has disclosed as to how her mother was killed by the accused persons. Although, PW 4 Roji Kumari is a child witness aged 8 years, but her evidence is worth to be relied upon. This witness was tested by the trial Court and was found fit to depose as a witness. She has categorically stated that her mother was killed by the accused persons. In cross-examination, she stated that she had seen the occurrence. She repeated her statement that she had seen the accused persons on the spot and the inflicting of dagger wound by accused Dinesh and at the time of assault Nandan and his wife had caught hold of the hands and legs of the deceased. The other witnesses have fully corroborated the prosecution case. Even if, there is any minor discrepancy or variance in the evidence, it is well-settled that such minor discrepancy or variance in evidences does not make the prosecution case doubtful. It may further lend credential to the deposition. The normal course of human conduct would be that while narrating the incident there may occur minor discrepancy, such discrepancy in law may render credential to the deposition. 10. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to differ with the findings recorded by the trial Court and also I am of the view that the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt. 11. In the result, there is no merit in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed. A.K.Prasad, J. 12 I Agree.