Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1310 (JHR)

Bishnu Chouhan v. State Of Jharkhand

2006-11-13

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, DHANANJAY PRASAD SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous imprisonment for life, by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 1996. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that on 1st of June 1995, the informant (PW 4) Barku Turi, Chowkidar No. 2/7 of village-Budhidih Police Station-Dugda was informed by villagers of Bera Basti that a murder has taken place in the forest. Accordingly, the informant went to Bera Basti village where he was informed that during hunting of forest animals, the villagers had gone inside the forest, where they found two persons throttling the deceased. According to the villagers, they chased and could catch hold of appellant Bishnu Chouhan while appellant Dhular Chouhan could manage to flee. According to the informant, appellant No. 1 admitted his guilt before the villagers and was brought to police station. 3. The informant gave his fardbeyan before the Officer-in-Charge of Dugda Police Station, on the basis of which Dugda Police Station Case No. 28 of 1995 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Appellant No. 1 along with First Information Report was forwarded to the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat. The police further prepared the inquest report of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination and investigated the case to finally submit charge-sheet against both the appellants. Their cases were committed to the Court of Sessions for trial where they were charged by the Sessions Judge, Bokaro on 26.4.1996 under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. However, after examining the witnesses the learned trial Court found and held both of them guilty for the offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to serve rigorous imprisonment for life. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further asserted that none of the eye-witnesses have been able to identify and name appellant No. 2. It is also asserted that at the time of incident, the appellants were minors. 4. The present appeal has been preferred on the grounds that the learned trial Court has not considered the material contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is further asserted that none of the eye-witnesses have been able to identify and name appellant No. 2. It is also asserted that at the time of incident, the appellants were minors. Learned Counsel for the appellants further point out that the eye- witnesses of the occurrence have contradicted each other on material point. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants may be set aside. 5. We have anxiously considered the points raised by the learned Counsel for the, appellants along with the materials available on the records. The prosecution case depends upon the statements of PW 1, PW 3, PW 4, PW 5 and PW 6. Barku Turi, is the informant who is hearsay witness of the occurrence. He has admitted in the cross-examination that PW 4 Mathur Hembrom has informed him regarding the incident and he went inside the forest to recover the dead body of Mudro Chamar. He has proved the signature on the. fardbeyan (Ext. 1). He further admitted in para 3 that on the information of PW 4, they went inside the forest along with police. PW 2 Chetu Hembrom is a witness on the inquest report of the dead body. PW 1 Siyaram Murmu, PW 3 Durga Murmu, PW 4 Mathur Membrom and PW 5 Hopna Manjhi have all supported the prosecution case by asserting that when they had gone inside the forest for hunting animals, they heard alarms raised by the deceased and reached at the place of occurrence and found two persons throttling the deceased. They have asserted that they could arrest the appellant No. 1 Bishnu Chouhan after chase while appellant No. 2 Dhular Chouhan. could manage to flee. 6. They have asserted to have identified both of them. According to them, they informed PW 6 regarding the incident, who had lodged the First Information Report. PW 1 has asserted vide paragraphs 2 and 12 that he could see the appellants from short distance. He further asserted vide paragraph 16 that the deceased raised alarms thrice. PW 3 similarly asserted that on the alarms raised by deceased, they reached there vide paragraphs 10 and 16 of his cross- examination. PW 1 has asserted vide paragraphs 2 and 12 that he could see the appellants from short distance. He further asserted vide paragraph 16 that the deceased raised alarms thrice. PW 3 similarly asserted that on the alarms raised by deceased, they reached there vide paragraphs 10 and 16 of his cross- examination. PW 4 Mathur Hembrom vide paragraphs 3 and 11 asserted that they reached at the place of occurrence and could catch hold of appellant Bishnu Chouhan from the spot. He has further supported the fact that he informed Chowkidar (PW 6) regarding the incident. PW 5 Hopna Manjhi has supported these witnesses in details. He has admitted vide paragraph 6 that he did not know the deceased or the appellants from before. PW 7, Dr. S.N. Lal has opined that the deceased was throttled to death. According to him, the death has happened within 24.00 hours of the post-mortem examination. PW 8 has formally proved ,the fardbeyan, inquest report and the case diary, as the Investigating Officer could not be examined. 7. From perusal of the evidence available on the records, we find that altogether six witnesses have supported the prosecution case that appellant No. 1 along with appellant No. 2 has caused death of Mudro Chamar in the forest. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the motive has not been disclosed to commit this offence. In such cases of murder, motive is not important. The eye-witnesses of the occurrence, PW 1, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 have consistently supported the fact that they saw the appellants throttling the deceased. It is also apparent from the evidence on record that appellant No. 1 was caught hold by these witnesses from the place of occurrence immediately after the occurrence. We have also gone through the impugned judgment and the reasons given by the learned trial Court for conviction of the appellants. It does not require any interference. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we find that the present appeal is without merit and deserved to be dismissed. 9. 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.