Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 446 (JHR)

Joseph Ekka v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2006-04-24

N.DHINAKAR, R.R.PRASAD

body2006
JUDGMENT : By Court.- The appellants, Joseph Ekka and Johan Ekka, were arrayed as A 1 and A2 before the 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Gumla and tried under Section 302 read with section 34 I.P.C., on the allegation that they inflicted injuries on Rogha Bhagat aged about 70 years at 6.30 p.m. on 4.3.1993 leading to his death. The Trial Judge, finding each of the appellants guilty, sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The present appeal is against the said conviction and sentence. 2. Rogha Bhagat is the father of Lohra Bhagat, P.W. 8. P.W. 5 Mahabir Bhagat is the son of P.W. 8 They were the residents of village Joratand in which the appellants were also residing. About two days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel " arose between the appellants and the deceased when the deceased was to plough a field situate by the side of the road near a canal over which there was some dispute between the appellants and the deceased. It is said to be the motive. 3. At about 6.30 a.m. on 4.3.1993, Rogha Bhagat went out of his house to feed his goats and at about 7.00 a.m. P.W., 8, who was in the house, heard the cries of his father. He came out of the house and found the appellants chasing his father, who was running towards his house. When Rogha Bhagat reached near a Bridge which was constructed over a canal, he was overpowered and was assaulted with Ballam and Baluwa. On receiving the injuries at the hands of the appellants, Rogha Bhagat fell down. On hearing the cries, the villagers Gandur Oraon, Bania Oraon, Basu Oraon and others came to the scene. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W. 3 Gandur Oraon, P.W. 5 Mahabir Bhagat, who is the son of P.W. 8 and P.W. 8 Lohra Bhagat Thereafter, a complaint, Ext. 1, was given at the police station, on the basis of which a crime was registered and investigation was taken up. Inquest over the dead body of Rogha Bhagat was conducted and the inquest report is Ext 4. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, Dr. 1, was given at the police station, on the basis of which a crime was registered and investigation was taken up. Inquest over the dead body of Rogha Bhagat was conducted and the inquest report is Ext 4. After the inquest, the body was sent to the hospital for autopsy. 4. On receipt of the requisition, Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, P.W. 2, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Rogha Bhagat and he found the following injuries:- (i) Abrasion over left dorsal aspect of wrist of 1/2" x 1/4" size; (ii) Abrasion over right extensor aspect of forearm in lower 3rd of the size 1" x 1/2”; (iii) Bruise over left eye brow of the size 11/2 x 1/2 (iv) Bruise over the right mastoid region 2" x 1 "; (v) Incised wound over right parietal region of the size 21/2 x 1/4; (vi) Incised wound over frontal region of the size 1" x 1/2 x 1/4 (vii) Lacerated wound over right side of occipital region 11/2 x 1/2 x bone deep with fracture of occipital bone and laceration of brain." The Doctor issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, with his opinion that injury nos. (i) to (iv) would have been caused by hard and blunt substance and injury nos. (v) and (vi) would have been caused by some sharp object and that death is on account of haemorrhage and shock due to the above injuries. 5. After the completion of investigation, final report was filed against the appellants. They denied their complicity in the crime when they were questioned under section 313 Cr. PC. 6. learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the injuries noted by the Doctor on the dead body did not support the prosecution theory that he was assaulted with Ballam and Baluwa. He, therefore, submits that the trial court has committed an error in convicting the appellants. He further submits that in the absence of any motive, there was no reason for the appellants to have assaulted the deceased and therefore, the conviction of the appellants is to be set aside. We have heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State. 7. Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext. He further submits that in the absence of any motive, there was no reason for the appellants to have assaulted the deceased and therefore, the conviction of the appellants is to be set aside. We have heard Mr. T.N. Verma, learned counsel appearing for the State. 7. Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, who conducted autopsy and who issued Ext. 2, the post mortem certificate, was examined as P.W. 2 and from his evidence and from the post mortem certificate, we find Rogha Bhagat died on account of homicidal violence. 8. P.W. 3 Gandur Oraon, P.W. 5 Mahabir Oraon and P.W. 8 Lohra Bhagat were examined by the prosecution to prove that the deceased Rogha Bhagat was assaulted by the appellants. On going through the evidence of the three eye-witnesses, we find no infirmity to reject their evidence. Their names were also mentioned in Ext. 3 given immediately after the incident by P.W. 8. The fact that P.Ws. 5 and 8 are related to the deceased cannot be a reason to reject their evidence. In fact, P.W. 3 Gandur Oraon is an independent witness. We, therefore, accept their evidence. The contention of the learned counsel that the Doctor who conducted autopsy did not find any injury indicating that some sharp weapon must have been used like Ballam and Baluwa is to be stated only to be rejected. In fact, it was found by the Trial Judge that Ballam can also be used as stick or lathi and the Doctor also found two incised injuries on the dead body which have been mentioned as injury no. (v) and (vi). It is, therefore, clear that Ballam would have been used as lathi as a result of which the other injuries except injury nos. (v) and (vi) would have been caused by Ballam and that the above injuries namely injury nos. (v) and (vi) would have been caused by Baluwa. Therefore, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence. 9. The other contention that there was no motive for the appellants to attack the deceased is also not a reason to reject the prosecution version. (v) and (vi) would have been caused by Baluwa. Therefore, the evidence of the eye-witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence. 9. The other contention that there was no motive for the appellants to attack the deceased is also not a reason to reject the prosecution version. It is, no doubt, true that the prosecution did not let in any evidence to show that there was a strong motive for the appellants to attack the deceased but P.W. 8 in his evidence stated that two days prior to the date of incident, a quarrel arose between the appellants and the deceased when the deceased attempted to plough a field situate near a canal over which there was some dispute between the appellants and the deceased. In any event, the motive will not assume much significance if the evidence of the eye-witnesses is cogent and convincing. We have already found that we have no reason to reject the evidence of the eye-witnesses. In the above circumstances, the conviction of the appellants has to be upheld and is accordingly upheld. The sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial court is also confirmed. It is reported that 2nd appellant, Johan Ekka, is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. The Sessions Judge is directed to take steps to commit the 2nd appellant, Johan Ekka, to prison for serving the sentence. This appeal is dismissed.