Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1266 (JHR)

Firoj Singh Kuntiya v. State of Jharkhand

2006-10-31

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 376, 302/34 and 2dTof the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 376 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and further sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 1997. However, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The factual matrix leading to their convictions are that deceased Naguri Mai Kandaiburu, daughter of informant used to sell Haria. According to the prosecution version, she had gone to Mangla Hat at Chaibasa in the afternoon of 25.3.1997 from where she returned along with the appellants and two others, namely, Saheb Singh Kuntia and Jhinkpani @ Burhan Singh Kuntia. Further stated that she handed over the sale proceeds to her mother and left the house with the appellants and two others that they will get her married. When the girl did not return till next day le. 26.3.1997, they started searching her. However, the girl could not be find nor the appellants in their house. The girl could not be found, till 26.3.1997 so they were going to police station when they came to know that the dead body of the girl was hanging on a tree inside Lolosaigutu forest. The Informant along with others reached at the place of occurrence and found the dead body of her daughter hanging on the tree. According to him, the appellants have left their bicycles in the village. He further asserted that appellant Firoj Singh Kuntiya was after his girl for many days and they had gone with the deceased and ultimately got her raped and killed. 3. This statement was recorded by Chaibasa Muffasil Police, on the basis of which Chaibasa Muffasi Police Station Case No. 45 of 1997 dated 27.3.1997 was registered under Section 376/302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four accused persons. However, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants as remaining two persons became witnesses supporting the prosecution version. 4. The trial of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where they were charged for the alleged offences on 7.1.1998. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, after investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants as remaining two persons became witnesses supporting the prosecution version. 4. The trial of the appellants was committed to the Court of Sessions where they were charged for the alleged offences on 7.1.1998. The appellants have pleaded not guilty and claimed false prosecution. However, the learned trial Court found and held guilty both of them for the offence under Sections 376, 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to them as stated above. 5. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has misconceived the facts and relied upon circumstantial evidence without valid grounds. It has further been asserted that the contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witness have not been considered. It has also been asserted that the weak evidence available on the record does not warrant the conviction of the appellants to such extent. 6. We have anxiously considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellants along with the materials on record. The prosecution has brought on record seven witnesses and one Court witness including Saheb Singh Kuntia and Jhinkpani @ Burhan Singh Kuntia as FW 5 and PW 6, who according to prosecution, had gone with the appellants in the night of 25.3.1997 along with the deceased. As expected, they have resiled from their statements made before Court witness Shri K.M. Tiwary, Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and brought on record Exts. I and II. This leaves the prosecution case with the statement of PW 2 and PW 3 as the informant that during trial died and could not be examined PW 2 Benajamin Jarika is the co-villager of the informant and he was informed by Pitai Kandaiburu in the evening of 25.3.1997 that Naguri Kandaiburu has left the house in the company of the appellants and two others. He has tried to search out the girl and found two bicycles left in the khalihan, brought to their house. According to this witness in the morning of 26.3.1997, the appellants along with two others came to his house and asked for the bicycles, but the informant asked them to bring the girl before the bicycles were handed over and thereafter they left the bicycles. According to this witness in the morning of 26.3.1997, the appellants along with two others came to his house and asked for the bicycles, but the informant asked them to bring the girl before the bicycles were handed over and thereafter they left the bicycles. He further asserted that in the next morning of 27.3.1997, the dead body of the girl was found hanging on a tree. He is a witness on the fardbeyan also marked Ext. 1 and 2. He asserted in cross-examination that bicycles were handed over to police and the seizure list was prepared in his presence as Ext. 3 on which signatures were proved as Ext. 3/1 and 3/2. He is also witness on the inquest report PW 3 Jagmohan Kandiyaburu, the brother of the deceased, has stated that he saw his sister going on the bicycle of the appellant sitting on front rod while appellant No. 2 was sitting behind him. According to this witness, they found the bicycles belonging to the appellant standing in the khalihan of PW 2 and kept it. He further asserted that in the morning of 26.3.1997, the appellants came to ask for their bicycles and ultimately the bicycles were handed over to the police PW 4 Ratiman Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has proved the fardbeyan recorded by him and the inquest report seizure list etc. He described the place of occurrence vide para-3 and asserted that the bicycles belonging to the appellants were seized vide para-4 by him in presence of PW 2 and PW 3. He described that the dead body was hanging from a Karanj tree at the height of 10 feet. 7. PW 1, Dr. B. Dayal, who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of Naguri Kandaiburu, has clearly stated that the deceased was having teeth bite present on her nipples and ligature marks on the neck. He further found fracture of thyroid bone and the victim was throttled to death. He further found injuries on the private parts of the deceased. The dead body was found hanging on a tree tied from neck with her saree. The postmortem report confirms that the deceased was raped and then throttled. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the circumstances do not conclusively go to show that the appellants only might have committed the alleged offence. The dead body was found hanging on a tree tied from neck with her saree. The postmortem report confirms that the deceased was raped and then throttled. 8. The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the circumstances do not conclusively go to show that the appellants only might have committed the alleged offence. We have considered this aspect on the basis of the materials available on record. The learned trial Court has discussed the evidence threadbare vide paragraphs-10 to 13 of the impugned judgment. It has been positively held that the appellants were seen going with the deceased in the evening of 25.3.1997. The bicycles seized by PW 2 and handed over to police vide seizure list Ext. 6 shows that these two bicycles belonging to the appellants were left when they went out with the girl in the evening of 25.3.1997. Later on, these two appellants came back in the morning of 26.3.1997 to take back the bicycles but they were refused by the informant and these witnesses Le. PW 2 and PW 3. The bicycles belonged to the appellants have not been disputed. It is further found that in the next morning 27.3.1997, the dead body found. The postmortem report clearly mentions the death may have occurred within 48.00 hours of the time of postmortem examination, held at 4.30 p.m. on 27.3.1997. The probable witnesses, PW 3 and PW 4, have supported the prosecution ctory in details. In such circumstances, where the appellants were seen going with the deceased in the evening of 25.3.1997 and later on dead body was recovered from the forest, the circumstances, lead to their guilt. 9. All these facts have been considered and discussed by the trial Court in details. The learned Counsel for the appellants could not bring on record how the circumstances available on record should be disbelieved. The fact that the appellants were known to the deceased and she went with them after informing her mother and father further proves that she went with them in good faith. However, she was subject to sexual violence and finally throttled to death. As such, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants sufficiently. Accordingly, we find that the present appeal is without merit. 10. However, she was subject to sexual violence and finally throttled to death. As such, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges against the appellants sufficiently. Accordingly, we find that the present appeal is without merit. 10. In the result, the conviction of the appellants along with sentence passed by the learned trial Court against them is hereby affirmed. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.