Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 20 (JHR)

Surendra Bhuian v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-04

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
ORDER By Court This appeal has been filed against tthe judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.07.2003 passed by Sri Bhawesh Chandra Jha, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganji in Sessions Trial No. 393 of 2001 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentencing him to under R. I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment to undergo imprisonment for two years. 2. The prosecution case in short is that on 17.12.2000, the Officer-in-Charge recorded fard beyan of Kalpatiya Devi (P.W. 1) wife of Gopi Bhuian (deceased) at her house at 13:00 hours to the effect that on 16.12.2000 at about 7:00 P.M. while she was in her courtyard along with her husband Gopi Bhuian and youngest daughter Laali Kumari (P.W. 2), all of a sudden accused person armed with pistol came there and fired at her husband and fled away. On hearing sound of firing, the son-in-law Girija Bhuian (P.W. 10), daughter Motia (P.W. 9) and Manjit came from inside the house, but by that time the deceased who was lying in the pool of blood died. On alarm, the persons of nearby place arrived there. It is further alleged that due to land dispute, the husband of the informant was killed. 3. Mr. P. K. Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the appellant has been acquitted from the charges under the Arms Act and moreover no bullet or pillet was found inside the body of the deceased; and that there was only one injury on the deceased; and that the informant said in her chief that the occurrence took place in the morning whereas in the F.I.R. she said that it took place in the evening. He further submitted that in the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., his defence version was not recorded. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment. 5. In the F.I.R. the informant – P.W. 1 said that the occurrence took place in the evening at about 7:00 P.M. P.W. 2 who is also an eye-witness said that the occurrence took place in the evening. On the basis of minor contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 1, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. 5. In the F.I.R. the informant – P.W. 1 said that the occurrence took place in the evening at about 7:00 P.M. P.W. 2 who is also an eye-witness said that the occurrence took place in the evening. On the basis of minor contradiction in the evidence of P.W. 1, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. The doctor (P.W. 11) has found fire arm injury on the face with blackening and charring and on dissection the bone under the wound was fractured and there was a round opening or hole. On further dissection, the hole communicated with the oral cavity. The upper mendible bone was found fractured and the entire tooth line was distorted and there was laceration over lower lip. In his opinion, the death was due to fire arm injury causing shock and heamorrhage. The doctor further said that the injury could be made by countrymade pistol from near distance. The version of the eye-witnesses P.W. 1 and 2 is fully supported with the other materials on record including the evidence of the doctor (P.W. 11). There is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution case that the husband of the informant was killed by the appellant due to land dispute by causing fire arm injury on the vital part of his body. From the statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it appears that the appellant denied the questions put to him and when he was asked whether he has to say anything in defence, he simply said yes. It appears that he did not make any further statement thereafter. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was not properly recorded. 6.In our opinion, the prosecution has able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and no grounds are made out for interference with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court. In the result, this criminal appeal is dismissed.