Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 105 (JHR)

Sudershan Pradhan v. State of Bihar

2009-01-22

D.G.R.PATNAIK, R.K.MERATHIA

body2009
JUDGMENT D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction and the order of sentence dated 28.07.1999 and 29.07.1999 respectively passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No. 10 of 1998 by which both the appellants were convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The case was registered on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant Mangri Devi on 13.08.1997. 3. Prosecution’s case in brief is that in the morning of 13.08.1997, the informant’s husband Kuar Pradhan along with her son Jagat Pal Pradhan went to plough their lands situated at Khijurban. Later, the informant’s daughter Gaumati Devi (P.W.-9) also went to the fields for transplantation of the paddy seedlings. At about 11.00 AM the daughter came home running and informed that her father and brother were killed by the accused Sudarshan Pradhan @ Sudar Pradhan and Janmu Pradhan. Narrating the manner of occurrence, she informed that while her father was ploughing the land and her brother was standing by the side of the ridge of the field, both the accused persons came there. The accused Sudarshan Pradhan was armed with a spade and started altercation with her father. At that time Janmu Pradhan caught hold of her father Kuar Pradhan and the accused Sudarshan Pradhan dealt a blow with the spade on the head of Kuar Pradhan and felled him on the ground. When her brother Jagat Pal Pradhan attempted to intervene, he was twice assaulted on his head by Sudarshan Pradhan. He too fell down on the ground sustaining injuries. Both the victims died at the spot. On this information, the informant ran to the place of occurrence where she found her husband and son lying dead. The police officer from the Orga Out Post arrived there and recorded her Fardbeyan. The motive of assault is stated to be land dispute. Both the accused persons happen to be the step brothers of the deceased Kuar Pradhan. 4. On concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheed recommending trial of both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and preferred to be tried. 5. Both the accused persons happen to be the step brothers of the deceased Kuar Pradhan. 4. On concluding the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheed recommending trial of both the accused persons for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. Both the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and preferred to be tried. 5. As many as 12 witnesses were examined by the prosecution including the informant, her daughter Gautami Devi, the Investigating Officer and the doctor who had conducted autopsy on the dead bodies of the deceased. No witness was examined by the appellants though the plea taken in their defence that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of land dispute. 6. On considering the evidences on record and relying upon the testimony of the informant’s daughter Gaumati Devi (PW-9) and finding support thereto from the medical evidence as also the evidence of the Investigating Officer, and of her mother (informant), the Trial Court recorded its finding that the charge has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against both the appellants and convicted them accordingly. 7. Shri Akhauri Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, has assailed the impugned judgement of conviction and sentence of the appellants on the main ground that the Trial Court has committed a serious error resulting in grave injustice to the appellants by placing implicit reliance on the testimony of the solitary witness namely Gaumati Devi (PW-9) ignoring the fact that she being a close relation of the deceased is a highly interested witness and her evidence is full of inconsistencies and contradiction and lacks support on material particulars either from the medical evidence or from the evidence of any other witness. Elaborating his arguments, learned counsel explains that even as per the evidence of PW-9, her sister-in-law (P.W.-7) who is the widow of the deceased son of the informant, had also accompanied the deceased persons to the paddy field in the morning, meaning thereby that the sister-in-law was one of the witnesses to the occurrence but the informant’s said sister-in-law (PW-7) has not supported the prosecution’s case at all in any manner against either of the present appellants. Learned counsel explains further that whereas in the F.I.R., a definite statement regarding the manner of occurrence has been given to suggest the active involvement of the appellant No. 2 claiming that he held the informant’s husband firmly enabling thereby the appellant No. 1 to inflict the fatal injuries on the deceased. In her evidence, however, the PW-9 does not give any such description of the manner of occurrence against the Appellant No. 2. 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, submits arguments in support of the impugned judgement. The contention of the learned counsel is that the grounds raised by the appellants on the purported contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-9, are trifling and minor in nature and they do not cast any shadow of doubt on the prosecution’s case and on the evidence of PW-9. 9. For better appreciation of the rival submissions, reference may first be had to the postmortem reports adduced in evidence. The postmortem report in respect of the deceased Kuar Pradhan records the following ante-mortem injuries found by the doctor : (i) Incised wound measuring 5”x 2”x 2” over the vertex of head anterior posterior region with fracture o f the underlying bone. (ii) Incised wound measuring 1”x 1”x 1” over the angle of mandible beneath the right ear with fracture. (iii) Incised wound measuring 1”x ½” x 1” over the right temporal region, lateral to the right eye with fracture of the temporal bone. The postmortem report in respect of the deceased Jagat Pal Pradhan records the following ante-mortem injuries found by the doctor :- (i) Incised wound measuring 1 ½ ” x 1”x 1 ½ ” over the right Perieto occipital region of head with fracture of the underlying bone with Brain matter coming out from the wound. (ii) Incised wound measuring 2 ½“ x 1” x 2” situated on the left side of occipital region of head with fracture of the occipital bone with massive damage of brain matter. In the opinion of the Doctor, death of both the victims were on account of the ante-mortem injuries sustained by them, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has also opined that the injuries could be possible by assault with any instrument having a sharp blade like a spade. 10. In the opinion of the Doctor, death of both the victims were on account of the ante-mortem injuries sustained by them, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The doctor has also opined that the injuries could be possible by assault with any instrument having a sharp blade like a spade. 10. From the evidences of the prosecution’s witnesses, it appears that the informant’s daughter (PW-9) is the only person amongst the witnesses who has claimed to have seen the occurrence. On going through her evidence, it does appear that she has supported the prosecution’s case in all material particulars. She has deposed that in the early morning hours of the date of occurrence, her father and her brother had gone to the paddy fields for ploughing. Her sister-in-law (P.W.-7) namely the widow of the deceased Jagat Pal Pradhan had also accompanied them to the paddy field. At about 10 ‘O’ Clock she too had gone to the paddy fields for sowing the seedlings. At that time both the appellants arrived there. Both the appellants indulged in an altercation with her father and both of them assaulted the old man with spade. She has also stated that when her brother Jagat Pal Pradhan attempted to intervene, he too was assaulted by the accused persons with the spade and on sustaining fatal injuries on their heads, both the victims died at the spot. 11. It is relevant to note here that as many as three incised wounds were inflicted on the deceased Kuar Pradhan. The multiple injuries corroborate the evidence of PW-9 that the assailants had given repeated blows on the victims head with the spade. The purported contradiction as to whether or not the appellant Janmu Pradhan had caught the deceased Kuar Pradhan enabling the appellant No. 1 to assault the victim, does not appear to be of any great significance in view of the fact that even as per the evidence of PW-9, at the time of the assault made on Kuar Pradhan, both the assailants were at his near presence while the son namely Jagat Pal Pradhan, was at a little distance away from the place where the assault was made on the deceased Kuar Pradhan. The evidence of PW-9 that when Jagat Pal Pradhan came to rescue his father, he was also assaulted with the spade, resulting in multiple injuries to him also, finds corroboration from the medical evidence. The contention of the appellants that no other witnesses including the wife of the deceased Jagat Pal Pradhan nor Bishambhar Manjhi who was cultivating his adjacent lands near the place of occurrence, have offered any support either to the evidence of the PW-9 or to the prosecution’s case at all, appears to be based on the evidence of P.W.-9 and of the Informant. As regards Bishambhar Manjhi, the evidence of the PW-9 is that at the time of occurrence, he was ploughing his own land which was situated adjacent South to the paddy lands of the deceased. She has not confirmed that Bishambhar Manjhi had also seen the occurrence from the distance although she has affirmed that at the time of recording of the Fardbeyan of the informant, he was present. As regards the absence of support by PW-7, it appears that she has chosen neither to support nor deny the prosecution’s case and has been declared hostile by the prosecution. The extent of her detachment from the family of her deceased husband would be evident from her statement wherein she totally denies to know either of the appellants, although even according to the admitted case of the defence, both the appellants are step brothers of her own father-in-law. Under such circumstances, the lack of support from PW-7, although she being a member of the family of the deceased, would not in itself cause any dent in the prosecution’s case or in the evidence of PW-9. 12. On the other hand, besides the medical evidence, the oral evidence of the informant (P.W.-8) lends ample support to the evidence of PW-9. PW-8 has affirmed that on the date of occurrence, her husband and son (both deceased) had gone to the paddy fields for ploughing. At about 10.00 AM her daughter also went to the paddy fields but soon thereafter her daughter returned home and informed that both the appellants had assaulted her husband and son with spade and had killed them at the paddy field. At about 10.00 AM her daughter also went to the paddy fields but soon thereafter her daughter returned home and informed that both the appellants had assaulted her husband and son with spade and had killed them at the paddy field. It is in the evidence of PW-9 that she had immediately returned home after the occurrence and informed her mother and thereafter both of them went to the place of occurrence where they found the dead bodies of both the deceased lying on the ground. 13. The place of occurrence as stated by PW-9 is the paddy field of the deceased. The description of the place of occurrence as given by the Investigating Officer, tallies with the description given by PW-9 and PW-8. The defence has not disputed the place of occurrence nor the fact that both the deceased persons were killed and their bodies were found in the paddy fields of the deceased. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that both the appellants have been falsely implicated on account of land dispute and on account of the greed of the informant to grab the lands of the appellants. On this issue, except a mere suggestion put to the witnesses PW-8 and PW-9, which both of them have denied, the defence has not brought any such material on record which could conclusively indicate that there was any hostility due to any land dispute between the deceased and the appellants. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-8 and PW-9 confirms that the entire lands which belonged to the joint family, were partitioned according to the satisfaction of the deceased and they did not bear any grudge in respect of the share of the lands given to the appellants. 15. As discussed above, there is no material contradiction in the evidence of PW-9 and the contradictions which the learned counsel for the appellants has tried to highlight, are minor and does not affect the broad aspects of the prosecution’s case. The evidence of PW-9 does inspire confidence and reliability. The presence of both the appellants at the time and place of occurrence being armed with the spade is suggestive of the fact that both of them came to the place of occurrence in furtherance of their common intention to assault the deceased. The evidence of PW-9 does inspire confidence and reliability. The presence of both the appellants at the time and place of occurrence being armed with the spade is suggestive of the fact that both of them came to the place of occurrence in furtherance of their common intention to assault the deceased. The intensity of the repeated blows on the head of the deceased only indicates that that assailants not only had the knowledge that the injuries inflicted on the victims were likely to cause death of the victims but it also indicates their intention to cause the death of the deceased. The trial court has adequately discussed the evidence and has assigned reasons for recording its finding of guilt against both the appellants. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the trial court. There being no merit in this appeal, the same is dismissed.