Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 175 (JHR)

Gardi Leyangi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment By Court: This appeal arises out of the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.04.2003 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2000, convicting the appellant under sections 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life. 2.The prosecution case in short is that the fardbeyan of the informant-Disue Gope (PW-2) was recorded on 6.4.1999 at about 8.45 AM wherein he has stated that when his elder brother Lakhinder Gope was enjoying heat of fire behind his house, the appellant came there with sword in his hand and suddenly assaulted on his neck, due to which, he fell down. The appellant again assaulted him causing several injuries on his shoulder, arm and hands. The informant cried for help and came there to rescue his brother but the appellant chased him and threatened him with dire consequences, on which the informant escaped from there, but he returned to the place of occurrence and found his brother lying dead. He learnt from the villagers that the appellant also assaulted one Budhan Singh Haiburu of the same village by sword cutting his left wrist and causing injury on his head, due to which he was badly injured and he was admitted to hospital and he died on the next day in course of treatment. There appears to be no cause behind this incident. 3.Two separate charges, one under section 302 IPC for the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu and Lakhinder Gope, and the third under section 307 IPC for attempting murder of the informant, were framed against the appellant. 4.Mr. Binod Singh, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on behalf of the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts; there are vital contradictions in the evidences; nobody had seen the occurrence and the alleged eyewitnesses are not reliable. He further submitted that the statement of the appellant recorded under section 313 Cr.Pc is only with regard to the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu and therefore, the appellant could not have been convicted for the murder of Lakhinder Gope also; the seizure of the weapon used in commission of the crime is also doubtful. He lastly submitted that the appellant must be aged about 64 years by now and is in jail for about 12 years. He lastly submitted that the appellant must be aged about 64 years by now and is in jail for about 12 years. 5.Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 6.It appears that though the charges under sections 302 and 307 IPC were framed against the appellant for the murder of Lakhinder Gope and Budhan Singh Haiburu and for attempting to kill the informant, but strangely, during the examination of the appellant under section 313 Cr. Pc, he was examined only for causing death of one of the deceased-Budhan Singh Haiburu. As the concerned judge has retired, we are not making any comment. However, we confine ourselves to the prosecution case with regard to the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu. 7.The doctor (PW-1) who conducted postmortem on the dead body of Budhan Singh Haiburu, found his left hand amputated from mid of radius and ulna by sharp cutting weapon. He also found 4”x1”1” incised wound over left parietal region and brain matter was protruding out of the wound. He also found fracture of left temporal and left parietal bones. He opined that the injuries were caused by sharp cutting weapon. 8.PW-2 (informant) has proved the FIR, seizure of blood stained soil and the sword. He saw the appellant fleeing away with sword after allegedly inflicting injury on Lakhinder Gope. 9.PW-3 is a hearsay witness. He has proved the seizure of blood stained sword. He said that he informed about the incident to the police about which, the investigating officer (PW-8) has stated that on information that somebody has been murdered, he made station diary entry. 10.PW-4 is an important eyewitness, so far as the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu is concerned. Mr. Binod Singh tried to impress that he did not see the occurrence. But on reading the entire evidence of this witness, it appears that though he did not see the assault on Lakhinder Gope, but he saw the assault on Budhan Singh Haiburu. He said that the occurrence took place in the morning of 6.4.1999 in which the appellant assaulted Lakhinder Gope with sword and thereafter the appellant assaulted Budhan Singh Haiburu also with sword when he was returning after attending the call of nature and was going to wash his hands; police was informed and the appellant was arrested with sword. This witness identified the appellant in the court. This witness identified the appellant in the court. He proved the inquest report of Lakhinder Gope. In his cross-examination, this witness said that the house of Lakhinder Gope was situated at about 200 yards from his house. He further said that he was outside his house when Lakhinder Gope was enjoying fire behind his house, but he did not see the occurrence. This witness further said that when Budhan Singh Haiburu was returning after attending the call of nature, the appellant assaulted him by sword causing several injuries on his person and he was admitted to hospital for treatment, but he ultimately died in the hospital. He also saw the sword in the hands of the appellant. 11.PW-5 has contradicted himself. On one hand, he projected himself to be eyewitness of both the murders in his examination-in-chief, but in the cross-examination, he said that he saw the murder of Lakhinder Gope from window of his master's house. However, in the cross-examination, he corroborated the presence of PWs-6 and 7 at the place of occurrence. 12.PW-6 is a hearsay witness. 13.PW-7 is an eyewitness with regard to the assault on Lakhinder Gope and there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of this witness which has been corroborated with the evidence of the doctor (PW-9), so far as the nature of injuries are concerned. 14.PW-8 is the investigating officer. 15.PW-9 is the doctor who conducted postmortem of Lakhinder Gope in which he found incised wound over neck and shoulder caused by sharp cutting heavy weapon. 16.After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, we are satisfied that the appellant has been rightly held guilty for the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW-4 and the doctor (PW-1) which has been corroborated with other materials on record. Though, there are materials on record in support of murder of other deceased Lakhinder Gope, but unfortunately, the appellant was not examined under section 313 Cr. Pc with regard to the murder of the deceased Lakhinder Gope. However, so far as the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu is concerned, prosecution has been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts as noticed above. Pc with regard to the murder of the deceased Lakhinder Gope. However, so far as the murder of Budhan Singh Haiburu is concerned, prosecution has been able to prove it's case beyond all reasonable doubts as noticed above. 17.In the result, this appeal is dismissed with modification in the judgment to the effect that finding of the trial court holding the appellant guilty for the murder of Lakhinder Gope, is set aside, but the judgment with regard to murder of the other deceased-Budhan Singh Haiburu, is confirmed.