Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 208 (JHR)

Pache @ Pachchepali Kerai v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-08

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.-These appeals arise out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 14.10.2003 and 16.10.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge. FTC1, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2000 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302/149 and 148. IPC and accordingly convicted under Sections 302/149, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of rupees five thousand each and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months. They are further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for offences punishable under Section 148, IPC. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that Sanatan Kerai (PW 3) lodged information with the Police that he learnt that his mother, wife and child have been killed. When he came to the village, he heard that in the last night, all the accused persons named in the FIR along with others, went to the house of the informant at about 10-11 p.m. and asked for liquor. When the informant PW 3 came out of his house, he was caught by the accused persons and was taken towards the football ground. Sanatan (PW 3) started crying. The accused persons killed PW 3, his mother Kuni Kerai, his wife Gita Puspa Sundi and his two years old child Walter Kerai with sharp cutting weapons. The accused persons while committing murder of the deceased said that now the deceased would not be able to dispossess them from the land/field. The accused persons also looted house hold articles and the grocery shop situated in the house. There was a meeting in the village for continuing sports on the land of Sanatan Kerai, but he wanted to cultivate it and, in fact, he recently did cultivation and removed the goal posts (poles) fixed in the ground, where the accused persons used to play football. 3. On the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant PW 3, Toklo PS Case No. 124 of 1999 was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the killing of all the four deceased persons. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against all the accused appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. It is submitted that there is no eye-witness to the killing of all the four deceased persons. They further submitted that the conviction is based on the evidence of PW 4 only, who is a relative of the deceased. She (PW 4) is an interested witness. She could not identify the appellants from distance of 30-ft in the night. Her identification is doubtful. Persons residing in nearby houses were not examined. They further submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, supported the impugned judgment and submitted that only because PW 4 is a relative of the deceased persons, her evidence cannot be discarded as she has stood in her cross-examination and has corroborated other materials available on the record. He further submitted that as all the villagers were interested in the football ground, they did not come forward to support the prosecution case. 6. It appears that 13 accused persons were put on trial. Out of them five were acquitted on the ground that their identification was doubtful. 7. The prosecution examined nine witnesses. PW 1 is Dr. Lalit Minz who conducted post-mortem on the dead bodies of all the four deceased, namely Sanatan (55 years), mother Kuni Kui, 65 years, his wife Gita, aged 25 years, and his two years' child Walter Kerai, He found that all the four persons were killed by heavy sharp cutting weapons, such as tangi. The injuries found on the dead bodies of the deceased show that they were brutally killed. PW 2 Mangu Kerai is a hearsay witness. PW 3 Sanatan Kerai is the informant who got information from PW 4, Palina Keraia who is the sole eye-witness in this case. PW 5 Panu Mondal and PW 6 Ashwani Kumar Mondal are seizure list witnesses; PW 7 Ayodhya Ram is the Investigation Officer; PW 8 is the officer who submitted charge-sheet. PW 9 Rameshwar Samad is a hostile witness. Quality of witness is material and not the quantity. PW 5 Panu Mondal and PW 6 Ashwani Kumar Mondal are seizure list witnesses; PW 7 Ayodhya Ram is the Investigation Officer; PW 8 is the officer who submitted charge-sheet. PW 9 Rameshwar Samad is a hostile witness. Quality of witness is material and not the quantity. It is true that PW 4 is the solitary eye witness, but there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence. When she heard hulla from the house of the deceased, she went towards his house with a lantern and saw the appellants there. She further stated that the accused/appellants ransacked and looted the house and the grocery shop and killed all the deceased. There was profuse blood at the place of the occurrence. The deceased were killed due to land dispute. She identified the accused appellants. In cross-examination, she stated that she was in her house when she heard 'hulla'. She identified the appellants clearly. Dead bodies of all the four persons were seized from the place of the occurrence indicated by PW 4. PW 7 (Investigating Officer) said that the articles in the house of Sanatan were scattered and were looted including grocery articles. He recorded statement of PW 3 under Section 161, Cr.P.C, but it was not treated as fard beyan, as she was not in a position to make her statement clearly in "HO" language. Motive of the occurrence is also proved clearly. Villagers were using the ground/field of Sanatan as football ground, but he started cultivating it and threw away the goal posts, etc. As the appellants art villagers and are known persons, their identification by PW 4 cannot be doubted or disbelieved. There is no reason to disbelieve or discredit the evidence of PW 4. There is nothing on the record to indicate false implication of the appellants. 8. After carefully going through the materials on record, and hearing the parties at length, in our opinion, the prosecution has fully proved its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellants in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2000 and the same is hereby affirmed. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Markush Gagrai, Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 382 of 2004 is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. These appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. Markush Gagrai, Appellant in Cr. Appeal No. 382 of 2004 is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled. He is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, to serve out the sentence. In case of his failure to surrender, the trial Court shall take all coercive steps to take him into custody. Appeals dismissed.