Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1141 (JHR)

Pandu Diggi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-08-02

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment By Court.-This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed on 4th August, 2003 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III; Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2003/S.T.R. No. 2 of 2003, convicting the appellant for committing the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that Selay Samad (PW-3) lodged his fardbeyan on 8.11.2002 at about 22.35 hours before police to the effect that at about 4 P.M., on that day the appellant came and called his father Sir Singh Samad (the deceased) from the house and when he came out, the appellant inflicted dagger injury in his abdomen, due to which he was grievously injured and fell on the ground. On alarm, his mother PW-1 came out from the house and saw the father lying on the ground. The appellant fled away saying that he has inflicted chhura blow in the abdomen of the father of the informant. The informant further said that the appellant inflicted such injury with intention to kill his father. He further said that the deceased used to go for drinking liquor in the house of the appellant, where about 15 days back there was quarrel between them on which the appellant threatened him for dire consequences. 3. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as Amicus Curiae relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court AIR•1987 SC 1151 (Gurdip Singh vs. State of Punjab), submitted that in the F.I.R. and in the evidences of the witnesses, different motives have come for the alleged occurrence and, therefore, the motive is doubtful and at best the conviction under Section 304 Part-II could have been awarded. He further submitted that there are several discrepancies in the prosecution case. He also submitted that it is a case of single blow and there was no repetition of blow. He lastly submitted that the appellant is aged about 75 years and he is in jail custody for about nine years by now. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who came out of the house on hulla about the occurrence. He lastly submitted that the appellant is aged about 75 years and he is in jail custody for about nine years by now. 4. On the other hand, the learned APP supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW-1 is the wife of the deceased, who came out of the house on hulla about the occurrence. PW-2 is the wife of the informant, who came out of the house along with the deceased and she is an eye witness. PW-3 is the informant and also an eye witness to the occurrence. PW-4 is the Doctor. PW-5 is the brother of the deceased. PW-6 is his neighbour. PW-7 is the hearsay witness-PW-8 is the Investigating Officer and PW-9 is a hostile witness. 6. PW-1 supported the prosecution case. She inter alia said that the 'Bhujali' was snatched from the hands of the appellant by her daughter-in-law (PW-2). She further said that the appellant inflicted one injury in the abdomen of the deceased with Bhujali. She further said that the Bhujali was kept in her Aangan and then it was handed over to the police. In her cross-examination, she said that on the date of occurrence, at about 3.00 P.M., there was quarrel in between the appellant and the deceased and that the appellant was saying to the deceased that you do not donate rice or money in performing cremation in the village. 7. PW-2, is the daughter-in-law of the deceased, who came out of the house along with the deceased. She is an eye witness. She inter alia said that as soon as the deceased came out of the house, without any talk between them, the appellant inflicted 'Bhujali' blow in the abdomen of the deceased. There was no bleeding. The father-in-law (the deceased) fell on the ground. He was taken to the hospital where he died at about 5 A.M. in the morning. The Bhujali was snatched by her and it was given to the police. 8. PW-3, the informant is also an eye witness. He also fully supported the prosecution case. 9. PW-4 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found penetrating wound on the left side of the abdomen. As per the Doctor, the cause of death was peritonitis, haemorrhage and shock, caused by a long penetrating object. 10. He also fully supported the prosecution case. 9. PW-4 is the Doctor, who conducted Post Mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found penetrating wound on the left side of the abdomen. As per the Doctor, the cause of death was peritonitis, haemorrhage and shock, caused by a long penetrating object. 10. PW-5, brother of the deceased, supported the prosecution case. He inter alia stated that the appellant used to prepare liquor and there was dispute in between him and the deceased with regard to money. PW-6, neighbour of the deceased, also supported the prosecution case. 11. PW-8, the Investigating Officer, inter alia said that he seized the blood stained dagger (Bhujali) from the place of occurrence. 12. After hearing the parties at length and going through the records, we find that though it is a case of single blow but it appears that the appellant came prepared with a sharp penetrating weapon and without any provocation and quarrel, inflicted injury by it in the abdomen of the deceased. There was no chance of repetition as it was snatched by PW-2 from the hands of the appellant. There appears to be no reason for false implication. Only because the PWs-1 and 5 said different reasons for dispute between the appellant and the deceased, the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved that the appellant killed the deceased due to some dispute between them. 13. In our opinion, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts. No grounds have been made out for any interference by this Court with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed against him. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.