Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1266 (JHR)

Rasika Champia v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2003-11-04

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, HARI SHANKAR PRASAD

body2003
JUDGMENT Hari Shankar Prasad, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.8.1996 and order of sentence dated 31.8.1996 passed in Sessions Trial No. 389 of 1993 whereby and whereunder the learned Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa held the appellant guilty under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and convicted and sentenced him to undergo RI. for life. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that Udai Champia, the informant, gave fardbeyan on 4.8.1993 at 4.30 p.m. at village Nuiya stating therein that he is an employee of Gua Mines Plant and from 3.8.1993 his shift of work was from 2.00 p.m. not 10.00 p.m. and on 4.8.1993 he and his co-worker Bahadulla Kerai got down from the company bus on a Kucchi road near his house situated village Nuiya and from there they started for their respective houses and on the way near Bair tree, daughter of informant Gurubari aged about ten years and son Sadhu Champia, aged about eight years were seen crying and they disclosed to the informant that accused Rasika Champia has assaulted their mother with pharsa. On getting this piece of information, the informant rushed to his house and saw him (Rashika Champia) near a jackfruit tree behind his house, running towards south and in the house he saw his wife Surumani Champia lying dead in pool of blood. On his hullo, neighbourers came there and his younger brother Pandu Champia also came there and told him that on 3.8.1993 at about 5.00 p.m., Ramai Champia, the son of accused Lodro Champia was ailing and accused Mata Champia and Birsingh Deogam had been called for jharphook and pujapath and this jharphook and pujapath was being witnessed by many persons including women of the neighbourhood and Rasika Champia was also there. After the pujapath was over, Mata Champia gave others to understand that Surumani Champia (wife of the informant) practiced witchcraft on Ramai Champia, on this, other persons present there, namely, Mata Champia, Lodro Champia and Birsingh Deogam swore a promise that if Surumani Champia was not finished, she would practice witchcraft on other villagers and will kill them like them like this, then appellant Rashika Champia stood up, took up pharsa and went to the house of the informant and killed his wife by assaulting her with pharsa On the basis of the fardbeyan, a case under Sections 302/120B, IPC was registered and police after investigation submitted charge sheet on 6.9.1993. Cognizance of the case was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions on 4.12.1993 where charges were framed and the learned Sessions Judge recorded evidence adduced by both the sides-both oral and documentary-and came to a finding and held the appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid. 3. Prosecution has examined altogether eight witnesses. PW 1 is Munga Champia. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 2 is Gurubari Champia. She is the daughter of the informant as well as the deceased. PW 3 is Sadhu Champia. He is the son of the informant as well as the deceased. PW 4 is Udai Champia. He is informant of the case. PW 5 is the brother of the informant. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 6 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Surumani Champia. PW 7 is Kanu Ram Champia. He has been declared hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. PW 8 is the IO of the case. 4. PW 2 is Gurubari Champia. She has come to say that appellant committed murder of her mother by inflicting pharsa blow and at that time, she was in her house. She has stated that it was night and she was alone. She has further stated that she came out from the house but did not disclose about occurrence to anybody. She has further deposed that on arrival of her father (informant) she disclosed the occurrence to him and went with him to her house. She has stated that it was night and she was alone. She has further stated that she came out from the house but did not disclose about occurrence to anybody. She has further deposed that on arrival of her father (informant) she disclosed the occurrence to him and went with him to her house. She has further deposed that at the time of occurrence, Nitima and uncle Pandu Champia were not there. She has further deposed that Nitima had gone at the alleged date of occurrence. 5. PW 3 is Sadhu Champia. He has come to say; that his mother was murdered by the appellant. He has deposed that it was night. He further says that PW 2 is his sister and at the time of occurrence," his father was not in his house and had gone out for work. He claims that he saw Rashika Champia (appellant) inflicting pharsa blow on his mother on neck and on arrival of his father, he disclosed about the occurrence to him. He further deposed that appellant had come to his house and on his query whether Haria is in the house or not, he had opened the door. On arrival in his house, he saw his mother lying dead. 6. PW 4 is the informant of the case. He has come to say that on the alleged date of occurrence he returned from his duty at about 10.00 p.m. in the night and in the way, he met his son Sadhu Champia and daughter Gurubari and both of them were weeping and they disclosed to him that their mother has been murdered by the appellant. He went home with them and saw dead body of his wife lying in pool of blood. He further deposes that police arrived at the place and recorded his statement. 7. PW 6 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of Surumani Champia and found the following ante mortem injuries. 1 Incised wound over front of neck measuring 4-1/2" x 3" x 2" cutting esophagus trachea and C.V. bones (cervical vertebra) 2. Incised wound over left and right upper extremities measuring 2" x 1/2" x 1/2", 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" On dissection 1. Head and neck above mentioned injuries 2. Thorax-Thoracic cage intact. 3. Heart-Lungs pale. 4. Abdomen-Liver intact, stomach empty, uterus non-gravid. 5. Urinary bladder-Empty. Incised wound over left and right upper extremities measuring 2" x 1/2" x 1/2", 1-1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" On dissection 1. Head and neck above mentioned injuries 2. Thorax-Thoracic cage intact. 3. Heart-Lungs pale. 4. Abdomen-Liver intact, stomach empty, uterus non-gravid. 5. Urinary bladder-Empty. According to the doctor, death was caused by sharp cutting weapon, that may by pharsa and the injury were sufficient of cause death. Postmortem report is Ext. 2. 8. TPW 8 is the IO of the case. He has come to say that on rumour he arrived with force at Nuiya village where he recorded fardbeyan of Udai Champia and prepared inquest report of the dead body of Surumani Champia and inspected the P O. According to him. PO is the house of; the informant built of mud and tile and it faces north and in the western room of the house he found the dead body of Surumani Champia on cot lying in pool of blood. He seized one pharsa having handle. He has given boundary of PO. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are two eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the occurrence but according to him , none of them is an eyewitness. Further, even if both of them have seen the occurrence, there are so many contradictions in their evidence which make their evidence not worthy of reliance. It was further pointed out that evidence of both the witnesses has to be considered together and not separately be, cause both of them claim to have seen the occurrence together. It was also pointed out that both the eyewitnesses are minor and their evidences have to be scrutinized carefully because they may be under influence of tutoring. It is the settled principle of law that evidence of such child witnesses should be scrutinized carefully. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Chhagan Dange v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 454 . It was further pointed out that PW 2, who is the daughter of the deceased as well as the informant, has stated in her deposition that appellant caused murder of her mother by pharsa, whereas PW 3, who is the son of the deceased as well as the informant, says that appellant caused murder of his mother by chura. It was further pointed out that PW 2, who is the daughter of the deceased as well as the informant, has stated in her deposition that appellant caused murder of her mother by pharsa, whereas PW 3, who is the son of the deceased as well as the informant, says that appellant caused murder of his mother by chura. It was also pointed out that evidence of these witnesses has not been correctly appreciated by the learned Court below and, therefore, due to wrong appreciation. Court has come to a finding about guilt of the appellant. In this connection, reliance was placed upon State of U.P. v. Ashok Dixit, AIR 2000 SC 1066 : 2000 (2) East Cr C 505 (SC). 10. It was also pointed out that evidence of these two witnesses has not been corroborated by medical evidence. Further, all the witnesses are related to one another and, therefore, they are interested witnesses and they are inimical towards appellant and, therefore, no reliance can be placed upon their evidence. In this connection, reliance was placed upon Patel Chala Viram v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1994 SC 1250 . 11. On the other hand, from the evidence of PW 2 and PW 3, it is clear that PW 2 and PW 3 were in the house along with their mother, admittedly it was 10.30 p.m. in the night and children were expected to be in the house along with their mother. It is also clear that informant (PW 4) working somewhere in the second shift and, therefore, used to come at late night and when he returned home, he met both the children a bit away from his house and PW 2 and PW 3 saw this appellant entering the house. It is also clear from the evidence of PW 3 that he opened the door, allowed entry to this appellant and he went inside and caused murder of Surumani Champia. PW 2 has seen causing murder of her mother by pharsa, whereas PW 3 has stated that chura blow was given on the neck of his mother. Both PW 2 and PW 3 have stated that their father was not, at that time, in the house and PW 4 has also deposed that he works in the second shift and comes home late night. Both PW 2 and PW 3 have stated that their father was not, at that time, in the house and PW 4 has also deposed that he works in the second shift and comes home late night. At about that time, it is not possible for independent witness of the neighborhood to be there because it was late night and was about 10.30 p.m. The evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 corroborated by medical evidence because both chura and pharsa is sharp aged weapon and on the body of the deceased, two incised wound have been found which are ante-mortem in nature and, therefore, their evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence also. It is true that PW 2 has stated that pharsa was used whereas PW 3 has stated that chum was used but question arises as to which type of weapon was used in commission of crime. 12. From the discussions made above, we come to the conclusion that both PW 2 and PW 3, though with slight difference about weapons, have deposed that appellant committed murder of their mother. Further, circumstance also discloses that at about that time, this appellant entered the house and committed murder of their mother and out of fear, both PW 2 and PW 3 left their house and went away to some distance where they were waiting for their father to come and soon after arrival of their father, they disclosed about the name of this appellant and also commission of murder of their mother by this appellant, so circumstance is also against this appellant and his presence at about that time in the house has been established. 13. In that view of the matter, we find that there is no material for interference in the impugned judgment and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.