Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 132 (JHR)

Laskar Soren v. State of Bihar

2006-02-20

M.Y.EQBAL, N.DHINAKAR

body2006
By Court.- The appellants 1 and 2, Laskar Soren and Rameshwar Soren who were arrayed as A-1 and A-2 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka, were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and on being found guilty, each one of them was sentenced to imprisonment for life. Two other accused, Dharmu Hembram and Kalipada Murrnu, who were also tried alongwith the above two appellants, were acquitted by the trial Judge. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants. 2. The facts are as follows: PW 7, Prayag Mandai, is the uncle of the deceased, Durga Mandal PW 3 Arjun Mandai is the brother of the deceased, Durga Mandal. The appellants and the deceased as well as the witnesses were residing at village Nildaha in the district of Dumka. Five days prior to the date of occurrence, an altercation took place between the deceased Durga Mandai and appellant No.2 Rameshwar Seren on account of the deceased refusing to sell the grocery items on credit to appellant no. 2. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased had given evidence in a Court of Law against appellant No.1 Laskar Soren and, therefore, both the appellants were aggrieved against the deceased Durga Mandal. This is said to be the motive of the occurrence. On 21.11.1984 at about 2.30 P.M. PW 7 prayag Mandal was at his field supervising the agricultural operation as the paddy harvesting was going on. He heard the distressing cries of the deceased Durga Mandal. He went to the place and found the appellants there. Appellant No. 1 was armed with Tangi and appellant No.2 was having iron rod in his hand. PW 3 was also present at that place. PW 7 saw the appellants inflicting injuries on the deceased. The deceased Durga Mandai fell down and died instantaneollsly. The appellants, thereafter, ran away from the place taking alongwith them the cycle of the deceased Durga Mandal. Two other persons who could not be identified by any of the witnesses, were also present alongwith the two appellants. The fardbeyan (Ext. 8/4) was given at the police station at 2.30 pm on 22.11.1984. The investigation in the crime was taken up. PW 8, the Investigating Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body. The inquest report and the signatures on the said inquest report, stand marked as Exts. The fardbeyan (Ext. 8/4) was given at the police station at 2.30 pm on 22.11.1984. The investigation in the crime was taken up. PW 8, the Investigating Officer, conducted inquest over the dead body. The inquest report and the signatures on the said inquest report, stand marked as Exts. 2, 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. After the inquest, the body was dispatched to the hospital requesting the doctor to conduct autopsy. 3. On receipt of the requisition and the dead body, the Medical Officer (PW 4) attached to the hospital, conducted autopsy and he found the following injuries: (i) Bruise on the abdomen left side 5" x 1 1/2' with oedema, (ii) Bruise on the left forearm 3" x 2" with oedema, (iii) Oedema on the neck 21/2' x 1", (iv) Lacerated wound on the scalp left side in front 1 1/2" x 1/2' x 1/2', (v) Lacerated wound on the scalp left side behind no.(iv) 1" x 1/2' x 1/2', (vi) Lacerated wound on the scalp behind no. (v) 3" x 1/2' x 1/2', (vii) Incised wound on the left nostril 1/2", (viii) Lacerated wound on the left cheek at two places 1" x 14" x 14" x 1/2' x 1/8" x 1/8", (ix) Oedema with congestion left temple, (x) Lacerated wound upper left under the nose 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2", (xi) Lacerated wound left ear 1" x 1/2" x 1/2". The doctor issued (Ext. 1), the postmortem certificate, with his opinion that death is on account of the injuries and the said injuries could have been caused by blunt substance as well as by sharp cutting weapon. 4. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted by the Police Officer against the four accused persons. 5. When the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.PC on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied all the incriminating circumstances. They stated that on account of previous enmity, they were falsely implicated in the crime. 6. Mr. Gautam Kumar, who has appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court, contends that since there is delay in laying the fardbeyan, the prosecution case is to be disbelieved. Learned counsel submits that although according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at noon on 21.11.1984, the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was given only at 2.30 pm on 22.11.1984 and that the said fardbeyan was also belatedly dispatched to the Magistrate on 24.11.1984. Learned counsel submits that although according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at noon on 21.11.1984, the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) was given only at 2.30 pm on 22.11.1984 and that the said fardbeyan was also belatedly dispatched to the Magistrate on 24.11.1984. Learned counsel further submits that the entire prosecution case has been shaped after much thought. 7. We have heard Mr. Shekhar Sinha, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 8. The cause of death of the deceased Durga Mandai is not in dispute which stands established through the evidence of the doctor (PW 4) who conducted autopsy and issued Ext. 1, the post mortem certificate. We, on the medical evidence, hold that the deceased Durga Mandai died on account of homicidal violence. 9. The prosecution examined PWs. 3 and 7 as witnesses to the occurrence. It would be seen from their evidence that on the date of incident, PW 7 was supervising the paddy harvesting in his field. When he heard the distressing cries of the deceased he rushed to the place and found the appellants causing injuries on the deceased. PW 3 also gave evidence stating that while the deceased was near his field, the appellants along two unidentified persons reached the spot and the appellants inflicted injuries on the deceased. 10. On going through the evidence, we find that the defence did not elicit any answer in favour of the accused. It is to be remembered that there was previous enmity between the appellants and the deceased. About five days prior to the date of incident, the deceased Durga Mandai had refused to sell grocery items from his shop on credit to appellant No. 2 and that the deceased had given evidence against the appellant No.1 in a Court of law. The evidence of the two eye-witnesses coupled with the fact that there was enmity between the deceased and the appellants, shows that the appellants had gone to the place where the deceased was present and attacked him with lethal weapons, on account of which the deceased suffered injuries and died at the place. It is no doubt true that the fardbeyan (Ext. 3/4), which was given on 21.11.1984, was registered as formal FIR (Ext. 4) only on 22.11.1984 and thereafter it was sent to the Magistrate on 24.11.1984. It is no doubt true that the fardbeyan (Ext. 3/4), which was given on 21.11.1984, was registered as formal FIR (Ext. 4) only on 22.11.1984 and thereafter it was sent to the Magistrate on 24.11.1984. This delay, by itself, cannot be a reason for this Court to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses unless it is shown from the records that the witnesses had given false evidence. On the similar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Rabindra Mahto & Anr. vs. State of Jharkhand, [JT 2006(1) SCC 137] [: 2006(2) JLJR (SC)89] held:- "There cannot be any manner of doubt that Section 157 of the Criminal Procedure Code requires sending of an FIR to the Magistrate forthwith which reaches promptly and without undue delay. The reason is obvious to avoid any possibility of improvement in the prosecution story and also to enable the Magistrate to have a watch on the progress of the investigation. At the same time, this lacuna on the part of the prosecution would not be the sole basis for throwing out the entire prosecution case being fabricated if the prosecution had produced the reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons. The provisions of Section 157, CrPC are for the purpose of having a fair trial without there being any chance of fabrication or introduction of the fact at subsequent stage of investigation." 11. The observation of the Supreme Court in the above judgment squarely applies to the facts of the case in hand. We, therefore, find no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that since there is some delay in registering the formal FIR and belated dispatch of the same to the Magistrate, the occurrence could not have taken place in the manner suggested by the prosecution. At this stage, it could be noticed that there is also evidence to the effect that the accused were seen going towards the place, where the deceased was in his field, in a cycle. Though the witnesses were examined to speak about the said fact, PW 2 turned hostile but the evidence of PW 7 remains intact. At this stage, it could be noticed that there is also evidence to the effect that the accused were seen going towards the place, where the deceased was in his field, in a cycle. Though the witnesses were examined to speak about the said fact, PW 2 turned hostile but the evidence of PW 7 remains intact. On consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that there was previous enmity between the parties, we are of the view that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and sentenced them in the manner aforesaid. In the above background we find no merit in the appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed. It is reported that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender before the Court below for serving out the remaining part of the sentence, failing which the trial Court shall take all steps to commit them to jail.