Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1709 (JHR)

Lala Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2012-12-11

D.N.PATEL, PRASHANT KUMAR

body2012
ORDER Per D.N. Patel. J.-The present appeal is arising out of the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated l4th/17th January, 2000 passed by the IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1998 whereby, the present appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence, punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. It is a case of prosecution that on 18th May, 1997 at about evening hours the incident took place. This was seen by the informant (PW 2), who was coming to the house of the deceased namely Suresh Singh to meet and to give gift to the daughter of his brother. who was recently married as he could not give the gift at the relevant time. When he came nearby the house of one Dudhnath Manjhi, he heard the cries of ladies and children and he saw that the accused was assaulting his brother Suresh Singh. He was giving kick and fist blows to the deceased. When the informant PW 2 tried to save his brother the accused took out a dagger and threatened him and gave one dagger blow on the eyes and head of his brother Suresh Singh, who then fell down and thereafter the accused Lala Singh with the help of lungi of the deceased throttled him and Suresh Singh expired because of these injuries. Thereafter, the police came, fard beyan of PW 2 was recorded after lodging First Information Report by PW 2, investigation was carried out, statements of several eye-witnesses were recorded, who are referred by PW 2 in the F.I.R. charge-sheet was filed and the case was referred to Sessions Court and Sessions Trial No. 211- of 1998 was instituted against the appellant-accused and on the basis of the evidence on record of several eye-witnesses and other evidences on record, the appellant-accused has been convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Suresh Singh and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant-accused, who has submitted that there are several omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. 3. We have heard counsel for the appellant-accused, who has submitted that there are several omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant-accused that the so called eye-witnesses are relatives or friends of the deceased. Moreover, not a single eye-witness has tried to save the life of the deceased. The conduct of the eye-witnesses is unnatural and therefore, they are not trustworthy eye-witnesses. 5. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant-accused that non of the eye-witnesses has stated before the trial Court that who is aggressive whether appellant or the deceased. It is further argued by the counsel for the appellant-accused that defective is the investigation of the I.O. Neither weapon nor lungi nor blood stain nor soil has been recovered. Moreover, I.O. has not been examined. This caused serious prejudice to the case of the appellant and there is major contradiction in the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court and thus, the prosecution, has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial Court, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. We have heard counsel for the State-APP. who has vehemently submitted that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses including independent eye-witnesses. It is further submitted by the A.P.P. that PW 1, PW 2, PW 3, PW 4 and PW 5 are eye-witnesses of the incident. They have narrated the whole incident in detail and has also narrated the role played by the appellant-accused in causing murder of the deceased. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused. Prosecution has also established the motive which is land dispute. They have narrated the whole incident in detail and has also narrated the role played by the appellant-accused in causing murder of the deceased. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that the prosecution witnesses have identified the accused. Prosecution has also established the motive which is land dispute. Similarly, time, date and place of the offence have also been proved by the prosecution and nothing is coming out from the cross-examination of these eye-witnesses in favour of the appellant accused and rightly they have been believed as trustworthy witnesses by the trial Court and thus, no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellant accused in the murder of the deceased. It is further submitted by the counsel for the A.P.P. that looking to the medical evidence of P.W. 7-Dr. Lalita Verma, who carried out post-mortem of the deceased (Exhibit-4), there are injuries upon the body of the deceased especially on eyes and fracture of hyoid bone and fracture of lower jaw (mandible bone). These, injuries have also been narrated by the eyewitnesses which has been caused by the appellant-accused. Thus, the medical evidence given by Dr. Lalita Verma (P.W. 7) corroborates the depositions given by the eye-witnesses. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Hence, no error has been committed by the trial Court in convicting the appellant-accused and therefore, the appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 7. It is also further submitted by the A.P.P. that how the eye-witnesses will behave when the accused is causing murder of the deceased that vary from person to person and it all depends upon the temperament of the eye-witnesses and therefore, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the behaviour of the eye-witnesses was unnatural may not be accepted by this Court. It is further submitted by the A.P.P. that non examination of the I.O. has not caused any prejudice to the appellant because I.O. is not an eye-witness. The case of the prosecution is based upon eye-witnesses and they have already as stated hereinabove is proved. Time, place of offence, and the weapon used have also been clearly narrated by the eye-witnesses and they have already identified the appellant-accused. Thus, non examination of the I.O. has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The case of the prosecution is based upon eye-witnesses and they have already as stated hereinabove is proved. Time, place of offence, and the weapon used have also been clearly narrated by the eye-witnesses and they have already identified the appellant-accused. Thus, non examination of the I.O. has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. The distance between the house of Dudhnath Manjhi and the house of the deceased is hardly 10 to 15 feet. This map type narration has also come in the cross-examination of the eye-witnesses. Thus, no prejudice has been caused to the appellant in non examination of the I.O.. Hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. 8. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidence on record, it appears that the case of the prosecution is based upon several eve-witnesses, who are P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. Looking to me depositions of these eye-witnesses, it appears that the whole incident has taken place on 18th May, 1997 at evening hours, P.W. 2 is an informant. When he was coming at the house of Suresh Singh, who is deceased, he saw nearby the house of one Dudhnath Manjhi, that the appellant was causing injuries upon the deceased. He tried to save the life of the deceased, but, the appellant brought out dagger and gave threat to the informant (PW 2) and he caused injuries by knife at the eyes of the deceased Suresh Singh, who fallen down. Thereafter, the appellant took out the lungi of the deceased Suresh Singh and throttled the deceased, who expired thereafter on spot and the appellant ran away with weapon. PW2 has proved the F.I.R Looking to the depositions of eye-witnesses, they have identified the appellant-accused. They have proved the place, date and time of the offence. They have also proved the motive which is .a land dispute between the deceased and the appellant. Further looking to their cross-examination before the trial Court they have also proved the nature of weapon used by the appellant-accused which is a knife and where the injuries were caused to the deceased by the appellant. Every details have been given by these eye-witnesses and in detail they have narrated the role played by the appellant-accused in causing murder of the deceased. We have also perused the cross-examination of the witnesses. Every details have been given by these eye-witnesses and in detail they have narrated the role played by the appellant-accused in causing murder of the deceased. We have also perused the cross-examination of the witnesses. Nothing is coming out from the cross-examination of these eye-witnesses in favour of the appellant-accused. Out of these eye-witnesses, P.W. 3, P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 are independent eye-witnesses and therefore, the contention which is raised by the counsel for the appellant that the eye-witnesses are relatives is not accepted by this Court. Even if the eye-witnesses, who are relatives P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 merely because they are relatives of the deceased their depositions cannot be brushed aside by this Court, but, the Court should view at their depositions with all circumspection. We have closely seen the depositions of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are wife and brother of the deceased respectively. Looking to their examination in chief as well as cross-examination, we found them trustworthy eye-witnesses. They have narrated the incident without any exaggeration and without any omissions and contradictions. Similarly, other eye-witnesses, who are P.W. 3, PW 4 and PW 5, they are also trustworthy and we have no reason to disbelieve them and no error has been committed by the trial Court in believing these eye-witnesses as trustworthy witnesses. 9. Looking to the depositions of further prosecution witnesses especially PW 7, who is-Dr. Lalita Verma, who has carried out the post-mortem of the deceased on 19th May, 1997 at about 5.10 p.m., which is Exhibit-4, this witness has found following injuries upon the body of the deceased : "1. Lacerated injury from left eye angle to the septum of the nose. Old clotted blood was present about 2" x 1/2" x 1/2". 2. Fracture of hyoid bone. 3. Lacerated injury in upper eye about 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/4" old clotted blood was present. 4. Fracture of lower jaw (mandible bone). 5. About 1" wide blackish mark around the neck. Tongue is between the teeth. Face was swollen and cynosed. Conjunctivae was swollen. Stool was passed, Puplis were delated." 10. Looking to her deposition (P.W.7, it appears that the medical evidence is in corroboration with the depositions of the eye-witnesses. Eye witnesses have clearly narrated the injuries caused by the appellant-accused to the deceased. Their versions are corroborated by the deposition of PW 7. Face was swollen and cynosed. Conjunctivae was swollen. Stool was passed, Puplis were delated." 10. Looking to her deposition (P.W.7, it appears that the medical evidence is in corroboration with the depositions of the eye-witnesses. Eye witnesses have clearly narrated the injuries caused by the appellant-accused to the deceased. Their versions are corroborated by the deposition of PW 7. Thus, the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the ocular evidence and medical evidence are contradictory with each other is not accepted by this Court on the contrary, the medical evidence corroborates the depositions of the eye-witnesses. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by the trial Court and no error has been committed by the trial Court in coming to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the evidence beyond reasonable doubt for committing murder of the deceased by the appellant. 11. Counsel for the appellant submitted that neither weapon nor lungi nor blood stain nor soil was recovered by the I.O. Hence, the benefit of defective investigation should be given to the appellant-accused. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the case of the prosecution is based upon the eye-witnesses. The defect in investigation is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. The benefit of defective investigation cannot be given to the appellant-accused. Looking to the depositions of the eye-witnesses and looking to the medical evidence, it appears that the eye-witnesses are trustworthy and their presence at the scene of the offence is also natural and they have clearly narrated the role played by the appellant-accused in causing murder of Suresh Singh. Hence, the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant-accused is not accepted by this Court. 12. Counsel for the appellant-accused contended that non examination of I.O. has caused serious prejudice to the case of appellant and hence also, the appellant should be given the benefit of quashing the judgment and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. This contention is also not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that the I.O. is not an eye-witness of the incident. The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses including PW 3, P.W.4 and PW 5 who are independent eye-witnesses. These eye-witnesses have been adequately cross examined by the appellant. Nothing has been elicited in favour of the appellant-accused. The case of the prosecution is based upon several eye-witnesses including PW 3, P.W.4 and PW 5 who are independent eye-witnesses. These eye-witnesses have been adequately cross examined by the appellant. Nothing has been elicited in favour of the appellant-accused. They have clearly identified the appellant-accused. They have proved the motive, place, time, date and the weapon used by the appellant and on which part of the body the injuries were caused to the deceased. Every detail has been given by these eye-witnesses. Moreover, PW 6 and PW 8, who are witnesses of the inquest report and panchnama they have also supported the case of the prosecution. Even the distance between the house of Dudhnath Manjhi and deceased Suresh Singh has also been narrated by the witnesses. In these sets of circumstances, non examination of the I.O. has not caused, prejudice, much less serious prejudice to the appellant. 13. Looking to the depositions of the eye-witnesses and other evidences on regard, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellant has committed murder of the deceased-Suresh Singh and no error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidences on record, in convicting the present appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14/l7th January, 2000 passed by the IInd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 1998 is, hereby, affirmed. 14. There is no substance in this criminal appeal. Hence, the same is hereby, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.