Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 101 (JHR)

Phulia Tudu v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-02-07

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
By Court.- The appellants, two in number, were arrayed as A 1 and A2 alongwith Kisto Kisku, who was arrayed as A3, in Sessions Case No. 162 of 1987. The Trial Judge, finding the appellants alone guilty for the offence under section 302 read with Section 34 I.PC., sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life, while he acquitted A3, Kisto Kisku. In the judgment, the appellants and Kisto Kisku will be referred as A 1 to A3 for the sake of convenience. 2. The case of the prosecution is this: P.W. 8, Bitia Soren, is the sister-in-law of the deceased, Biti Murmu. The first appellant's son fell ill and the appellants/accused were under the impression that since the deceased, Biti Murmu, is a witch, she has caused a spell on the son of the accused and therefore, they were nurturing a grievance against the deceased. 11 is the case of the prosecution that on the date of incident, when the villagers had gone to the cremation ground to cremate the dead body of a villager, Jhora Hansda, A 1 and A2, Phulia Tudu and Malgo Soren, chased the deceased, Biti Murmu, and she took asylum in the house of P.W. 8.The appellants entered the house and caught hold.of the deceased, Biti Murmu. P.W. 8, at that time, was engaged in dehusking paddy. The first accused caught the hands of the deceased and pulled her out and the deceased fell down. The first accused, Phulia Tudu, assaulted her with lath; and when P.W. 8 attempted to intervene, she was threatened with her life. The other accused was present there at that time and after the occurrence, they ran away from the place. After the return of the villagers including the husband of P. W. 8, information was passed on to them. Thereafter, fardbeyan, Ext. 3 was given by P.W. 8 at Raneshwar police station at 2.30 p.m., which was registered as a crime and Ext. 6 is the first information report and investigation was taken up by P.W. 9. 3. P.W. 9, on taking up the investigation, reached the scene of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, Ext. 5, and sent the dead body to the hospital with a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.1, Dr. 6 is the first information report and investigation was taken up by P.W. 9. 3. P.W. 9, on taking up the investigation, reached the scene of occurrence, prepared the inquest report, Ext. 5, and sent the dead body to the hospital with a requisition to the Doctor to conduct autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, P.W.1, Dr. Sitaram Sah, Civil Assistant Surgeon attached to the Sadar Hospital, Dumka, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Biti Murmu and he found two injuries and they are as follows:- "(i) Swelling 4" x 3" over left side of frontal part of head; on dissection there was depressed fracture of frontal bone on left side extending up to left parietal bone; underneath brain and membrane were lacerated and big haematoma was present. (ii) On dissection of chest there was fracture of second and third ribs on right side and underneath pleura and lungs were lacerated and haematoma was there". The Doctor issued the post mortem certificate, Ext. 1, with his opinion that the deceased died on account of the injuries and the said injuries could have been caused by blunt substance and injury (ii) could have been on account of kick and fists. 5. After completion of the investigation, final report was filed against the appellants as well as the acquitted accused. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellants strenuously contends that since there is contradiction between the evidence of PW 8, the sole eyewitness, and the evidence of PW 9, the Investigating Officer, the evidence of PW 8 is to be disbelieved. According to him, though PW 8 claimed in her evidence that she saw an injury on the neck of the deceased, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem, did not notice any such injury and therefore, P.W 8 could not have been present to witness the occurrence. It is his further submission that PW 8 being the sole eye-witness, the prosecution case is to be rejected. 7. On the above contention, we have heard Mrs. C. Prabha, learned A.P.P appearing for the State. 8. P.W 1, Dr. Sitaram Sah, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Biti Murmu, gave evidence to the effect that Biti Murmu died on account of the injuries noted by him on her dead body when he conducted autopsy and that injury (ii) could have been caused with kick and fists. 8. P.W 1, Dr. Sitaram Sah, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who conducted autopsy on the dead body of Biti Murmu, gave evidence to the effect that Biti Murmu died on account of the injuries noted by him on her dead body when he conducted autopsy and that injury (ii) could have been caused with kick and fists. On the medical evidence, we hold that the deceased, Biti Murmu, died on account of homicidal violence. 9. P.W 8, the sister-in-law of the deceased, was examined to establish that the deceased, Biti Murmu, was beaten to death by the accused/appellants. The evidence of PW 8 shows that on the date of incident, when she was in the house and was engaged in dehusking the paddy, the deceased entered in her house being chased by the appellant/accused and that thereafter, she was beaten by the accused. Her evidence further shows that the deceased was dragged out by the first accused pulling by her hairs and thereafter, she was assaulted with lathi. It also shows that both the accused/appellants ran away from the place and that the information regarding the incident was given by her to her husband as well a5 the relatives including P.W.2, who is the husband of the deceased. The evidence of P.W. 2 also shows that on reaching the village from the cremation ground after cremating the dead body of Jhora Hansda, a villager, who died on that day, information was passed on to him by P.W. 8 about the occurrence and that thereafter, complaint was lodged at the police station. On going through the evidence of P.W. 8, the trial court rightly found that the defence could not succeed in eliciting any answer in favour of the accused for the court to hold that her evidence cannot be accepted and that it is not trustworthy and few contradictions, on which learned counsel for the appellants places reliance, are trivial in nature, which hardly merit consideration. On the contrary, we find that her evidence is natural, cogent and trustworthy. It is also to be remembered that the accused/appellants did not have a case before the trial court, when P. W. 8 was in the box, that she was not in the house at the time of occurrence. On the contrary, we find that her evidence is natural, cogent and trustworthy. It is also to be remembered that the accused/appellants did not have a case before the trial court, when P. W. 8 was in the box, that she was not in the house at the time of occurrence. It is also not the case of the accused/appellants that the occurrence did not take place in the house of P.W. 8 The accused/appellants having accepted the prosecution version that P.W. 8 was in the house and that the occurrence having taken place inside the house of P.W. 8, this Court cannot but hold that P.W. 8 is a natural witness as she was a resident in the said house. We also find it difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since P.W. 8 is the sole eye-witness, her evidence is to be rejected. We feel that the said argument is advanced without taking into consideration Section 134 of the Evidence Act, which provides that no particular number of witnesses are required to prove any fact and that the court is to look at the quality and not quantity of evidence. As we have already held that the evidence of P.W. 8 is satisfactory, we do not find any reason to reject her evidence. 10. On going through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find no merit in this appeal, which deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled. The Sessions Judge, Dumka, will take steps to commit the appellants to prison.