Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1060 (JHR)

Kado @ Kade Majhi v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-12-05

PRASHANT KUMAR, R.K.MERATHIA

body2011
Judgment By Court: This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th December 2001 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 379 of 1999, convicting the appellants for the offence under sections 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the informant-Lakhi Ram Majhi (PW-9) recorded his fardbeyan on 20.05.1999 before the police at 1.30 PM to the effect that her daughter-Hopina Majhian (deceased) aged about 20 years along with her younger daughter and PWs-3 and 4, used to work as labourer in the construction of new pond. On 19.05.1999 when Hopina Majhian was returning with PWs 3 and 4 through Khudibera Jungle, the appellants stopped Hopina and dragged her towards Nala and wanted to commit rape on her, to which Hopina was not agreeable. Then the appellant-Kado assaulted her by fists, slaps and danda and then strangulated her to death. Thereafter, both the appellants caused injury in the private parts of the deceased by danda. On seeing the occurrence, other persons accompanying the deceased fled away. When Hopina did not return in the night, the informant went in search in the morning and found her dead body. The boys and girls who returned from the work told him about the occurrence. He found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and blood was found near the private part of the deceased. 3. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. PWs 1 & 2 are inquest witnesses. Pws-3 & 4 are eyewitnesses. PW-5 is a formal witness. PW-6 was declared hostile. PWs-7 & 8 were tendered from cross-examination. PW-9 is the informant. PW-10 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. 4. Mr. The prosecution has examined eleven witnesses. PWs 1 & 2 are inquest witnesses. Pws-3 & 4 are eyewitnesses. PW-5 is a formal witness. PW-6 was declared hostile. PWs-7 & 8 were tendered from cross-examination. PW-9 is the informant. PW-10 is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. PW-11 is the Investigating Officer. 4. Mr. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that the FIR is absolutely contradictory to the statement made by eyewitnesses (PWs-3 & 4) in as much as, in the FIR, the incident has been narrated in such a manner that Pws-3 & 4 had seen the occurrence, whereas they simply said that the appellants took the deceased away in the jungle and asked them to go away and therefore, at best, it was a case of last seen and only on that basis, the appellants cannot be convicted. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 6. PWs-3 and 4, who were the natural witnesses accompanying the deceased while returning from the work, clearly said that when they were returning through Khudibera Jungle, the appellants on the way, called the deceased and asked PWs 3 and 4 to go away. Then PWs 3 and 4 returned and informed the father of Hopina (PW-9) about the said incident. They further said that later on, they learned that Hopina was killed. PW-3 identified the appellants in the dock also. PW-4 has fully corroborated the evidence of PW-3. There is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of PWs-3 & 4. The informant (PW-9) is a hearsay witness. There may be some exaggeration in the narration of the incident by the informant, but only on that basis, the evidence of PWs-3 & 4 cannot be brushed aside. The doctor (PW-10) who has conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, has found ligature mark on the neck of the deceased and the same was said to be the cause of death. The doctor also found several abrasion on the dead body of the deceased. The doctor further found lacerated wound on the private part caused by penetration by hard and blunt substance. As per the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The doctor also found several abrasion on the dead body of the deceased. The doctor further found lacerated wound on the private part caused by penetration by hard and blunt substance. As per the doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The time of death opined by the doctor, also fully corroborates the time of the alleged occurrence. There is nothing on the record to show as to why the appellants will be falsely implicated in this case. 7. The Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants inter-alia holding that the chain of circumstances is complete in this case which clearly indicates the involvement of these appellants in the alleged crime. 8. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.