Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 182 (JHR)

Majhi Samad v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-02

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT Nobody appears on behalf of the appellant. Mr. Yogesh Modi, panel advocate, is appointed as Amicus Curie to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant in this case. Later on : By Court.- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2003 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 401/97, 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 Behra Purty (informant)- PW 2 lodged a fardbeyan on 24.07.1996 at 9.30 p.m. along with the Baijanth Kodang (PW 3) that at about 4 p.m., his mother Jobna Purty (deceased) aged about 45 years and his younger sister Jema Kui purty (PW 1), aged about 18 years were working in the field when the appellant came there hiding an Axe and told Jobna Purty that he wanted to talk to her. Then he went near her and after taking out the Axe hidden in his shirt inflicted injury on the neck of Jobna Purty due to which she fell on the edge of the field. Then the appellant again inflicted tangi blow and killed Jobna Purty. He threatened PW 1, with dire consequences upon which PW 1 rushed to the house and told the informant about the incident. The informant went at the field and found the dead body of Jobna Purty. Appellant had already fled away. The informant further stated that the appellant told before Munda of the village that Jobna Purty had practiced witchcraft on the leg of the appellant due to which there was swelling in the leg and therefore, he killed Jobna Purty. The occurrence was seen by one Mandu Purty also. On this fardbeyan, First Informant Report was registered. 3. Mr. Yogesh Modi, learned A.C. for the appellant submitted that the conduct of appellant is relevant in as much as there is nothing to show that he tried to kill the eye-witness (PW 1) also and moreover, he was found in his house on the next day of the occurrence from where he was arrested. He further submitted that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report, therefore, there are chances of concoction. He further submitted that there was delay in lodging the First Information Report, therefore, there are chances of concoction. He pointed out that in the First Information Report, there is no whisper of any land dispute but, PWs 1 and 2 who are interested witnesses, have stated that there was land dispute also. It is submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute. He further submitted that as per First Information Report, one Mandu Purty also saw the occurrence but he has not been examined in this case which also creates doubt. He also submitted that the extrajudicial confession has got no evidentiary value on the basis of which, the alleged recovery of Axe was made. He submitted that Axe is a common weapon available in the village homes and moreover, PW 3 who is one of the seizure list witnesses, did not whisper about any seizure. Further the seized Axe was not sent for chemical examination. Lastly, he submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 15 years and he must be around 65 years of age by now. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses : PW 1 Jema Kui Purty is the daughter of the deceased, she is projected as an eye witnesses. PW 2 Behra purty is the informant who got information from PW 1 and lodged First Information Report. PW 3 Baijnath Kodang is a hearsay witness. PWs 4 and 5 are hostile witnesses. PW 6 is the Investigating Officer. PW 7 is the Doctor who proved the post mortem report. 6. Only because PW 1 is the daughter of the deceased her evidence cannot be discredited. There is nothing in her evidence to disbelieve her. Her evidence is corroborated with the First Information Report and the post-mortem report. In post-mortem report one incised wound on temporal region and two incised wound on neck caused by sharp cutting heavy weapons were found. PW 2 is the son of the deceased. He has also fully supported the prosecution case, as learnt by him from PW 1. PWs 1 and 2 in their cross-examination stated that there was land dispute also between the parties. PW 2 is the son of the deceased. He has also fully supported the prosecution case, as learnt by him from PW 1. PWs 1 and 2 in their cross-examination stated that there was land dispute also between the parties. It is true that in the First Information Report, the land dispute was not indicated but the First Information Report is not an encyclopedia. Moreover, in the First Information Report it was stated that the motive was the suspected witchcraft alleged to have been practiced by the deceased, as disclosed by the appellant before the village Munda. 7. Further when PW 1, the eye-witness is available, the motive becomes irrelevant. As already noticed the evidence of PW 1, is supported by the medical evidence as well as by the evidence of PWs 2 & 3. PW 3 inter alia stated that PW 1 told before the Munda that the appellant had killed her mother. PW 6, the Investigation Officer stated that PW 4 (hostile witness) stated before him that the appellant had killed the deceased by Axe. He further stated that PW 5 (hostile witness) stated before him that PW 1 told PW 5 that the appellant had killed the deceased by Axe. PW 7 is the Dr. Jawahar Khan, who has proved the post mortem-report. He stated that Dr. V.K. Singh had conducted postmortem on 27.09.1996 and he prepared the post-mortem report in his own hand writing. This witness has proved the hand writing and signature of the Dr. V. K. Singh. There is nothing to suggest false implication of the appellant. It is not understood why PW 1 will falsely implicate the appellant sparing the actual assailant only due to land dispute. There is no delay in lodging the First Information Report. The incident is as said to have taken place at about 4 p.m. in the evening. Thereafter, PW 1 informed PW 2. Then PW 2 went to the place of occurrence along with other villagers. Then fardbeyan was lodged at about 9.30 p.m. at the police station, which is about 4 k.m. away. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging of First Information Report and there was chances of concoction. 8. The conduct of the appellant is not trying to kill PW 1 is also not relevant. When the appellant threatened her of dire consequences, she fled away. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was delay in lodging of First Information Report and there was chances of concoction. 8. The conduct of the appellant is not trying to kill PW 1 is also not relevant. When the appellant threatened her of dire consequences, she fled away. Similarly, the conduct of not absconding is also not relevant. 9. After carefully examining the case, it appears that, the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant, beyond all reasonable doubts. No grounds have been made out for interference by this Court with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, passed against the appellant. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.