Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 418 (JHR)

Sibey Tirkey v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-04-20

N.DHINAKAR, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
Judgment By Court.-A-1, A-13, A-3, A-14, A-6, A-11, A-12, A-5, A-2 and A-9 in Sessions Case No. 201 of 1985, who were arrayed in that order before the Sessions trial, are the appellants. A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-10, who were tried alongwith them, were acquitted by the trial court and the appellants were found guilty under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1, A-3, A-13 and A-14 were found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A-1, A-2, A-3, A-5, A-6, A-9, A-11, A-12, A-13 and A-14 were also found guilty under Section 201 IPC and for the offence under Section 302 I PC, A-1, A-3, A-13 and A-14 were sentenced to imprisonment for life and others were convicted under Section 201 IPC and they were directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. The facts are as follows: PW-8 is the son of the deceased Abhiram Tirkey. PW-6, Krishna Tirkey, is the wife of the deceased and PW-7, Kumari Tirkey, is the wife of PW-8, Edburd Tirkey. They were residents of village Kurra. Accused-appellants were the residents of village Kaunshi within the jurisdiction of Barkagaon police station in the district of Hazaribagh. On 2.3.1983, the deceased alongwith PWs-6, 7 and 8 went to the village Kaunshi to attend the marriage ceremony in the house of A-9. At about 4.00 p.m., PW-8 was threatened by the 1st accused that he will kill his father, Abhiram Tirkey, by telling him that Abhiram Tirkey did not give him an acre of land. PW-8 was afraid of the threats given to him by the 1st accused. He returned to the house of A-9 at about 8.00-9.00 p.m. with a view to warn his father about the threats meted out by the 1st accused. When he came to the house of A-9, he found his father drinking liquor alongwith other guest and, therefore, he could not inform him of the threats given by the 1st appellant. While he was standing in the house of A-9, he saw Laljee Mahto, A-13 taking the deceased by saying that they will have some more liquor. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home and PW-8, on getting suspicion, went in search of his father. While he was standing in the house of A-9, he saw Laljee Mahto, A-13 taking the deceased by saying that they will have some more liquor. Thereafter, the deceased did not return home and PW-8, on getting suspicion, went in search of his father. He found him at a lonely spot near a bush and that A-1, Sibey Tirkey, was found pressing neck of his father with a lathi. A-3, A-13 and A-14 were seen holding the hands and legs of the deceased. On seeing this, PW-8 wanted to run away from the place and A-1 seeing PW-8 threatened and warned him not to disclose the commission of the offence. PW-8 returned to his home at village-Kurra. On 3.3.1983 he once again went to village Kaunshi to bring his mother, PW-6, and inform her that his father had been killed by 1st accused; neither PW-6, nor PW-8 informed any of the villagers nor did they make an attempt to go to the police station. They went to the place where the occurrence is said to have taken place and found the dead body of Abhiran Tirkey. Thereafter the dead body was brought to their village Kurra, wherein it was burried. On 3.3.1983, Chowkidar, Bhukhan Ganjhu, met PW-8 and PW-8 told him that his father was murdered. PW-5 asked PW-8 to give a complaint and accordingly PW-8 went to Giddi police station from where he was referred to Barkagaon police station. Accordingly, he went to the said Barkagaon police station and gave Ext. 2, Fardbayan, on the basis of which a crime was registered under Ext. 3, the printed first information report. Investigation in the crime was taken up and the body was exhumed by PW-12, the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hazaribagh. The inquest was conducted after it was exhumed and the inquest report is Ext. 4. After the inquest, the dead body was sent to the hospital with a requisition for autopsy. 3. On receipt of the requisition, Dr. N.K. Verma, PW-11, conducted autopsy and found the dead body to be highly decomposed and discoloured. He did not detect any external injury. On dissection, fracture and dislocation of 3rd and 4th surgical vertebra were found. He issued Ext. 5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death could be on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the fracture of the aforesaid bone. 4. He did not detect any external injury. On dissection, fracture and dislocation of 3rd and 4th surgical vertebra were found. He issued Ext. 5, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that the death could be on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the fracture of the aforesaid bone. 4. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the acquitted accused including the appellants. They denied all the incriminating circumstances when they were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contends that PW-8, who is the son of the deceased and who, according to the prosecution witness, witnessed the occurrence, not having informed any villagers of either Kurra or village Kanshi about the unnatural death of his father, his evidence cannot be accepted, as the conduct of PW-8 is against human nature. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 6. On the above contention, we have heard Mr. S.K. Srivastava, learned A.P.P., for the State. 7. The doctor, who conducted autopsy and who issued the post mortem certificate, was examined as PW-11 and the post mortem certificate was marked as Ext. 5. The evidence of the doctor and the post mortem certificate show that Abhiram Tirkey died on account of homicidal violence. The said fact was neither disputed before the trial court nor before this Court. According to the prosecution, as could be seen from the evidence of PW-8, that on 2.3.1983, the deceased went to the village Kounshi with a view to attend the marriage function in the house of A-9 and that PWs-6, 7 and 8 also accompanied him. According to PW-8-, he was threatened by A-1, who told him that his father will be murdered as he refused to part with a piece of land and that he could not inform his father about the threats given by the 1st accused as he was found taking drinks with his friends. He has further deposed that immediately thereafter A-13, Lalji Mahto, took the deceased for taking liquor and according to him when he went in search of his father, he found his father being murdered by the 1st accused, who was found pressing his neck with a lathi and that A-1, A-13 and A-14 were seen holding his hands and legs. He has further deposed that immediately thereafter A-13, Lalji Mahto, took the deceased for taking liquor and according to him when he went in search of his father, he found his father being murdered by the 1st accused, who was found pressing his neck with a lathi and that A-1, A-13 and A-14 were seen holding his hands and legs. He also stated that since he was threatened by the 1st accused that he should not to divulge about the crime, he did not inform anyone. According to him, he returned to his village Kurra and on the next date went to the village Kounshi from where he and his mother, PW-6, brought the dead body of Abhiram Tirkey and burried it in their village. 8. On going through the evidence of PW-8, we find it to be thoroughly unsatisfactory and it is highly artificial in nature. If, assuming for a moment, that the 1st accused threatened PW-8 not to divulge the murder then nothing prevented PW-8 from informing his villagers, since, according to him he returned to his village Kurra on the night of 2.3.1983. He did not do so. On the contrary, he claimed to have gone back to village Kounshi for informing his mother and to bring back the dead body of his father. If the deceased was actually murdered by the 1st accused and his group of men then PW-8 would not have returned to his village Kurra leaving behind his mother in the village Kounshi where the accused were residing and where, according to PW-8, his father was murdered. The conduct of PW-8 in not even entertaining a suspicion about the safety of his mother but returning to his village without even informing his mother about the murder is highly artificial and difficult to believe. It is also difficult to believe his evidence that even after he returned to his village Kurra with the dead body, he did not inform anyone, because he was threatened by the 1st accused. It could easily be presumed that after the dead body was brought to the village Kurra his villagers must have asked him as to how the deceased met his end as he had gone to village Kounshi on the previous day to attend a marriage ceremony and PW-8 could have easily informed his villagers about the murder. It could easily be presumed that after the dead body was brought to the village Kurra his villagers must have asked him as to how the deceased met his end as he had gone to village Kounshi on the previous day to attend a marriage ceremony and PW-8 could have easily informed his villagers about the murder. On the contrary without informing any of the villagers about the murder, he and others burried the dead body in his village Kurra. He did not go to the police station even on 3.3.1983. According to PW-8, only after he met PW-5, the village Chowkidar, he became bold and went to the police station to give a complaint. If the villagers in his village Kurra could not make him emboldened to go to the police station to lay a complaint against the 1st accused and others, PW-5, the Choukidar, could not have made him bold to go to the police station to lay a complaint on 4.3.1983. The conduct of PW-8, in the above' circumstances, is not only against human nature, but also totally unbelievable. We do not place any reliance upon the evidence of PW-8 to find the appellants guilty. 9. In view of the discussions made above, we set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants. The appeal is allowed. It is reported that the appellants are on bail; they are discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.