Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 101 (JHR)

Pappu Kumar Sharma v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-18

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.4.2003 and 21.4.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum in Sessions Trial No. 279 of 2001, convicting the appellant under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. He has also been convicted under Section 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Fine of Rs. 2,000/- for both the offences, has also been imposed. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 24.2.2000 at about 9.30 a.m., the informant Awtar Singh (PW 9), uncle of Jarnail Singh @ Jajju (the deceased) lodged a fardbeyan to the effect that on 23.2.2001 at about 7 p.m., the appellant residing behind his house came along with 2-3 boys and called his nephew Jarnail and took him away. The appellant and Jarnail used to roam together. When Jarnail did not return by 8/9 p.m., the informant got worried and started searching Jarnail and in that course they went to the house of the appellant and asked him, but he did not give any satisfactory reply. The informant continued searching. At about 7.30 a.m., in the morning when he went to attend the call of nature he found the slippers of Jarnail near a well, thereafter he saw into the well and found that the dead body of Jarnail was floating. On alarm several persons came there. The dead body was taken out. The informant alleged that the appellant along with three friends due to money killed Jarnail and thrown his body in the well. 3. The appellant was put on trial. He denied charges levelled against him. 4. Mr. Sahani, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant submitted that the chain of circumstances is not complete. He further submitted that at best it may be a case of last seen against the appellant. He also submitted that there was no motive for committing the alleged crime. He relied on the judgments reported in 2011 (3) East Cr C 47 (SC) : (2011) 5 SCC 258 Kulwinder Singh and 2011 (3) Eastern Criminal Cases 281 (SC) Sk. Yusuf. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the informant supported the impugned judgment. 6. He relied on the judgments reported in 2011 (3) East Cr C 47 (SC) : (2011) 5 SCC 258 Kulwinder Singh and 2011 (3) Eastern Criminal Cases 281 (SC) Sk. Yusuf. 5. On the other hand, counsel for the State assisted by the counsel for the informant supported the impugned judgment. 6. The prosecution examined 17 witnesses, PW 1 (Sanjay Mandal) and PW 2 (Shankar Sharma) gave statement also under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Officer (PW 17), though they refused to identify the appellant in Court and were declared hostile. But PW 1 said that the appellant and the deceased were going together and PW 2 said that the appellant came and sat in his auto. He was nervous and smoking and on being asked the appellant said that he has come after killing Jarnail. PW 3 is an witness of recovery of dead body. PW 4, Dipak Gorai @ Mokra is one of the companions of the appellant, he was declared hostile. PW 5, Bharat Gorai (owner of the hotel) and PW 6, Manjhla Gope is an employee of the hotel where the appellant along with his friends and the deceased alleged to have taken snacks, were declared hostile. PW 7, Rekha Kaur is the sister of the deceased aged about 12 years. She was found fit to depose before the Court. She fully supported the prosecution case. She said that the appellant came and took Jarnail with him and when Jarnail did not return she along with her father (PW 9) and uncle (PW 8) started searching. They went to the house of the appellant, where the appellant’s mother and the appellant was present, but the appellant did not give any satisfactory reply. This PW further said that on the face of appellant there were bleeding scratches of nail and when the appellant was asked about such scratches, he did not say anything and got down his neck. She also said that Jarnail had Rs. 700 and a silver chain. During cross examination, she said that the parties were neighbours and were on visiting terms. The appellant and the deceased were friends. PW 8, Sardar Amarjeet Singh (uncle of the deceased), also fully supported the prosecution case and his evidenced is consistent with the F.I.R. and other evidences and the materials on record. 700 and a silver chain. During cross examination, she said that the parties were neighbours and were on visiting terms. The appellant and the deceased were friends. PW 8, Sardar Amarjeet Singh (uncle of the deceased), also fully supported the prosecution case and his evidenced is consistent with the F.I.R. and other evidences and the materials on record. This witness also said that there were bleeding nail scratches on the face of the appellant. He also said that the deceased was a student of class-IV. PW 9 is the informant, he also fully supported the prosecution case. PW 10 and 11 were also the family members of the deceased and have fully supported the case of the prosecution. PW 12, Kalicharan Mahto, who was another companion of the appellant, has also been declared hostile. PW 13 is also a hostile witness. PW 14 is the Investigating Officer. He fully supported the prosecution case. He, inter alia, said that there was about 6ft. water in the well in which the dead body of the deceased found floating. PW 15 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem. He found abrasions on forehead, nose, below left eye and linear transverse abrasions over the front of neck along with longitudenal scratch over right side front of chest, the Doctor also found contusion over left side of neck. On dissection of skull he found whole brain contused. In the opinion of the Doctor the cause of the death of deceased was due to pressure over neck. He found the neck of the deceased contused, back of trachea and lyrinx contused, inner aspects of lyrinx contused. The injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. The time elapsed since death was approximately 18 hours. He also said that the injuries were also possible by forcibly putting down on the ground. In cross examination he said that injuries were possible with the help of rope or dupatta etc. He also said that the dead body floats over the water after decomposition and decomposition starts after 30 hours of death. PW 16 is another Doctor who examined the appellant. He found three abrasions on the face of the appellant. The age of the injuries were about 24 hours as per the Doctor. He opined that such injuries were not possible by slaps, but were possible by hard and blunt substance. PW 16 is another Doctor who examined the appellant. He found three abrasions on the face of the appellant. The age of the injuries were about 24 hours as per the Doctor. He opined that such injuries were not possible by slaps, but were possible by hard and blunt substance. PW 17 is the Judicial Officer before whom the statement under Section 164 of PWs 1 and 2 were recorded. 7. The defence tried to show that some other person might have committed the crime due to enmity as the informant party were involved in one murder case. But such defene is without any support. 8. After carefully examining the materials on record and hearing the parties at length in our opinion the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt against the appellant and the chain of circumstance is also complete. Even if the evidence of hostile witnesses are kept aside for the sake of argument, there is no reason to disbelieve PW 7 to 11 whose evidence is consistent that the appellant took the deceased with him; the deceased had one silver chain and Rs. 700 with him; the appellant was found with nail scratches when the informant party went to his house while searching for the deceased. There is nothing in the cross examination to discredit the said witnesses. Even if the deceased and the appellant were friends, that alone cannot be a ground for disbelieving the prosecution case. It is not necessary that the motive should be formed from the very beginning. Motive can be formed at any point of time. In this case, it appears from the materials on record that when the appellant saw that the deceased was having Rs. 700 with him, he took the deceased with him on some pretext. There is nothing to show that apart from the appellant the deceased went with some other person(s). It may be noted that when the dead body was recovered, the said amount and silver chain were not found on the person of the deceased. The bleeding nail scratches, indicated that the deceased might have tried to resist, as there is no explanation by the defence as to how the appellant got such injuries. After carefully examining the case from different angles, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The bleeding nail scratches, indicated that the deceased might have tried to resist, as there is no explanation by the defence as to how the appellant got such injuries. After carefully examining the case from different angles, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. In the result, we affirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.