Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 205 (JHR)

Sawarth Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2009-02-10

AMARESHWAR SAHAY, R.R.PRASAD

body2009
JUDGMENT The sole appellant was put on trial to face charges under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and also under Section 27 of the Arms Act on the allegation that he intentionally did commit murder of Rumali Devi. Learned trial court having found the appellant guilty for the charges sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also to pay fine of Rs.5000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 27 of the Arms Act. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.5.1999 at about 4 p.m., the informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, had gone to forest at Kodwaria Tand along with her Gotni, Rumali Devi (deceased) to pluck kendu leaves and while they were about to return, the appellant, having a country-made gun with him, reached over there at about 6 p.m. On finding the appellant with the gun, one Mohit Singh, P.W. 3, asked him not to move around there with gun, as so many ladies have been plucking kendu leaves, but the appellant fired shot from his gun which hit over the chest of Rumali Devi resulting into her death. The informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, having found Rumali Devi dead, started raising alarm upon which several villagers reached at the place of occurrence and brought the dead-body to village. When some of the villagers informed to the police, they came to the village on the next day i.e. on 26.5.1999 and recorded fard-beyan of informant, Enarwa Devi, P.W. 5, upon which a case was registered under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and also Under Section 27 of Arms Act. After the matter was taken up for investigation, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Dr. Gayan Prakash Singh, P.W. 1, held autopsy on the dead body and found the following injuries on the person of the deceased : (i) Firearm injuries on left breast lower part inverted “U” starting downward and medially margine blacken and charred; (ii) Another firearm wound 1c.m. x 1c.m. about 6c.m. below the first wound, cavity deep with blackening and charring of the margine. The doctor also found something like iron ball embedded in abdomen wall which was extracted and was handed over to the police. Accordingly, the doctor issued post mortem examination report (Ext. 1) with an opinion that the death of the deceased was caused on account of hemorrhage and shock due to firearm injury. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet upon which the case was committed to the court of sessions and when the charges were framed, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3. In course of trial, the prosecution, in order to prove the charges, examined as many as 10 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 5, Enarwa Devi is the informant, whereas Mohit Singh was examined as P.W. 3. Rest of the witnesses such as P.W. 2, Gopal Singh, P.W. 4, Dhiran Singh, and P.Ws. 6 to 10, namely, Bijay Kumar, Singh, Bajarangi Singh, Gaya Sao, Shambhu Pd. Jaiswal and Feku Singh, are the hearsay witnesses, who derived the knowledge of the occurrence from Mohit Singh, P.W. 3. 4. The trial court having found the appellant guilty for the aforesaid charges recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. Being aggrieved with the said judgment, this appeal has been preferred. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that no motive has been assigned for commission of the murder of the deceased and as such, there was no reason on the part of the appellant to commit offence, as has been alleged. It was also submitted that though P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, has claimed to have seen the occurrence, but from his evidence, which has been elucidated in his cross - examination, it would be evident that he was not an eye witness, as he himself testified that he did not see the appellant firing shot and further when he heard the sound of the firing, he came to the place where the deceased had fallen on the ground and as such, learned trial court should not have relied upon the testimony of P.W. 3. It has further been submitted that in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution and as such, the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances deserves to be acquitted. 6. It has further been submitted that in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the place of occurrence cannot be said to have been established by the prosecution and as such, the appellant in the aforesaid circumstances deserves to be acquitted. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that the deceased, Rumali Devi, had gone to the forest of Kodwaria Tand along with Enarwa Devi, the informant, P.W. 5, for plucking kendu leaves and while they were about to return, the appellant came over there with his country-made pistol and as per evidence of P.W. 5, the appellant was asked not to move around with his gun, as the women folks have been plucking leaves but the appellant fired shot causing injuries on the chest of Ramali Devi resulting into her death. The testimony of P.W. 5, who was not cross-examined on behalf of the defence, gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, who has also testified that he asked the appellant, who was armed with country-made gun, not to move around there, as the women folks have been plucking leaves, but the appellant fired shot causing injuries upon the chest of the deceased resulting into her death. P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, of course, has testified in his cross-examination that he did not see the appellant firing shot, rather he heard the sound of firing but this piece of evidences never shakes the credibility of this witness if we take the evidence of this witness in totality. According to P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, he when found the appellant wondering there with his gun, he asked him not to move around but the appellant did not care for that and immediately Mohit Singh, P.W.3, heard the sound of firing and did find Rumali Devi receiving gun shot injuries. 7. Thus, we do find that the testimonies of P.Ws. 3 and 5 are quite trustworthy. Further their testimonies get support from the other witnesses such as P.Ws. 2, 4, 6 to 10, who, of course, are the hearsay witnesses, but according to them, they came to the place of occurrence after having knowledge that the appellant has committed murder of Rumali Devi. 3 and 5 are quite trustworthy. Further their testimonies get support from the other witnesses such as P.Ws. 2, 4, 6 to 10, who, of course, are the hearsay witnesses, but according to them, they came to the place of occurrence after having knowledge that the appellant has committed murder of Rumali Devi. From their evidences, it appears that when P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, after the occurrence came to the village and started raising alarm that Rumali Devi has been done to death, they came to know about the occurrence. P.W. 3, Mohit Singh, in his evidence, has also testified that after the occurrence, he came to the village and informed the villagers. In that view of the matter, the evidences of the hearsay witnesses, being admissible, lend credence to the testimonies of the eye witnesses and moreover, their evidences get corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor has found the firearm injuries on the person of the deceased. So far as the submission regarding motive being absent is concerned, that is not correct, as we do find that P.W. 2, Gopal Singh, who is none other than the husband of the deceased, has testified that the appellant did kill his wife, as the appellant was having animosity with them and this fact even has been admitted by the appellant in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 8. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has fully established the charges levelled against the appellant even though the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, as nothing has been shown to have caused prejudice to the appellant on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer. Thus, we find that the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for the charges levelled against him. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.