Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 152 (JHR)

Lukna Sinku v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2007-03-07

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, D.P.SINGH

body2007
JUDGMENT By Court.- The sole appellant Lukna Sinku has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 3rd February, 1996 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum West, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 53 of 1995 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the informant Pelong Kui was returning from her parents house, on 12.9.1994 to her matrimonial house situated in village Iligara, P.S. Hat Gamaria in the evening when she found cloths of her husband was lying by the side of the village Road. Further stated when she was picking it up, P.W. 7 Perki Kui informed her that the appellant Lukna Sinku has killed her husband with Farsa due to quarrel between the children of both appellant and the deceased. The informant reached at the place of occurrence to find that her husband was lying dead with Farsa injuries. She raised alarm on which villagers assembled and police was informed. 3. Her statement was recorded by Hat Gamaria police immediately at 00.25 hours on 13.9.1994 and on the basis of which Hat Gamaria P.S. Case No. 50 of 1994 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. The police prepared inquest report; seized blood stained soil and Farsa from the place of occurrence and arrested the appellant in presence of witnesses. Charge sheet was submitted after investigation against the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial was committed and taken up by 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa Shri N. Lakra. After framing of charge, the learned trial court found and held the appellant guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to serve R.I. for life as mentioned above. 4. The present appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that the appellant was innocent and the prosecution has not been able to prove beyond doubts the charge against him. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sarkhel asserted that the appellant was wrongly convicted on the basis of contradictory statements of witnesses. He also submitted that all the witnesses examined before the learned trial court were interested and in absence of any eye-witness, conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant Sri Sarkhel asserted that the appellant was wrongly convicted on the basis of contradictory statements of witnesses. He also submitted that all the witnesses examined before the learned trial court were interested and in absence of any eye-witness, conviction is liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant further pointed out that there are material contradictions on record in the evidence of informant and eye-witness. It is also pointed out that the actual time of occurrence was not asserted by any of the witnesses neither the genesis of the occurrence, quarrel between the children have been proved. The learned counsel further pointed out that in absence of forensic report regarding the blood stained soil and Farsa, the prosecution case becomes doubtful particularly in absence of the I.O. The learned counsel further pointed out that even if the conviction of the appellant is upheld, the offence committed by him is squarely covered under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore the sentence may be modified. 5. We have anxiously went through the evidence on record in context with submissions made by Sri Sarkhel. The prosecution case is that Lukna Sinku, the appellant assaulted Chamru Sinku with Farsa in the afternoon of 12.9.1994. The reason behind this is said to be quarrel between the children of both appellant and the deceased. P.W. 6 Surja Sinku, brother of the deceased has asserted before the trial court that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with Farsa. According to him he has asserted before the police that in the afternoon, the children of the appellant has plucked Kumni from his Bari for which the deceased has reprimanded him. He has been cross-examined on this point without any benefit to the defence. P.W. 7 Perki Kui asserted that she saw the appellant assaulting he deceased with Balua. P.W.1 the informant though not an eye-witness of the occurrence found the dead body of her husband. She has been cross examined at length, in which she asserted that the dead body was lying by the side of her house. She has been only cross examined on this point. P.W. 2 is the village Munda who informed the police and in his presence fard beyan was recorded as well as blood stained soil and Farsa were seized. He is further witness on the inquest report. She has been only cross examined on this point. P.W. 2 is the village Munda who informed the police and in his presence fard beyan was recorded as well as blood stained soil and Farsa were seized. He is further witness on the inquest report. P.W. 3, 9 and 10 are tendered witnesses. P.W. 4 formally proved the FIR. P.W. 8 is hear say witness. 6. P.W. 5 Dr. V.K. Singh who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of Chamru Sinku at about 11.30 a.m. next day found six incised wounds on the dead body. According to him the injuries may be caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon like Farsa. From the facts available on the record and discussed above, we find that the deceased Chamru Sinku died due to sharp cut injuries caused likely by Farsa in the afternoon of 12.9.1994. Two eye witnesses of the occurrence P.W. 6 and 7 have supported the prosecution versions in details. P.W. 1 as hear say witness has supported her fard beyan before the police. The inquest report and the seizure list prepared by I.O. and proved by P.W. 2 Gardi Sinku the village Munda shows that the dead body was lying in the Angan of the convict. We find that the probable witnesses of the occurrence have proved the charges. We do not find any reason on record why these witnesses would falsely implicate the appellant. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant at this stage submitted that as per evidence of P.W. 6 the appellant Lukna Sinku has returned from Hat after being drunk. Therefore the offence committed by him under influence of Haria may be converted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We do not find any merit in this suggestion. The appellant having assaulted the deceased with Farsa knowing fully that it may cause death, committed the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder. We further find that the prosecution in the facts stated above, has been able to prove beyond doubts the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 8. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present appeal. In the result, this appeal be dismissed with confirmation of the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant Lukna Sinku.