Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 25 (JHR)

Durga Gagrai v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-04

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 2.8.2003 and 4.8.2003 respectively passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Singhbhum (West) at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No.103 of 2002 whereby the appellants have been held guilty for offence under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further the appellants have also been convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven year. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant-(PW1) Langoru Gagrai lodged a written report with the Police on 23.11.2001 that his brother Rupa Gograi and his wife Nanika Kui were missing from the village from 9.11.2001. During enquiry, PW3-Jhinki Kui informed that on 9.11.2001. while she was returning with Rupa Gograi and Nanika Kui, the appellant Durga Gograi, armed with Banki, (a sharp cutting weapon), was waiting on the way for killing Rupa Gagrai and that the appellants killed Rupa and his wife Nanika Kui. When the villagers along with the Munda-PW5Ram Rai Gagrai went to enquire from the appellants, appellant No.1 Durga Gagrai was not found in his home. However, appellant No. 2. Sur Singh Gagrai, confessed his guilt and on his confession, skulls of the brother and the bhabhi of the informant were recovered along with a saari of the deceased Nanika Kui, which was identified by him. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant (PW1). Bandgaon PS Case No. 40 of 2001 was registered After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that neither the doctor nor the Investigating Officer bf the case has been examined and the identity of the skulls of the two deceased is doubtful. He further submitted that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive for the alleged occurrence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment. 6. It appears that the prosecution has fully proved its cased against the appellant No.1 Durga Gagrai that he killed both the deceased. He further submitted that the prosecution has also not been able to prove the motive for the alleged occurrence. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment. 6. It appears that the prosecution has fully proved its cased against the appellant No.1 Durga Gagrai that he killed both the deceased. On the confession of the appellant No.2, the dead bodies were recovered which was identified by the saari of Nanika Kui (deceased). The prosecution witnesses have supported the factum of confession made by the appellant No. 2 leading to recovery of the skulls of the deceased. The identify of the skulls were also established by the prosecution witnesses, who have corroborated the prosecution case. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant Durga Gagrai as the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all shadow of doubts that he killed the two deceased and threw their dead bodies in the jungle. 8. So far as the appellant Sur Singh Gagrai is concerned, even as per his• confession, he was asked by the appellant Durga Gagrai to help him in committing the crime. There is no allegation by the eyewitness (PW3) that he caused any injury to any of the deceased. In this view of the matter, in our view he could at best, be convicted under Section 201/34 of the Iudian Penal Code and not under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 9. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant Durga Gagrai in Sessions Trial No. 103 of 2002. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Durga Gagrai is hereby affirmed. 10. So far as appellant Sur Singh Gagrai is concerned, his conviction under Section 302/34, IPC is hereby set aside and he is convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant Durga Gagrai is hereby affirmed. 10. So far as appellant Sur Singh Gagrai is concerned, his conviction under Section 302/34, IPC is hereby set aside and he is convicted under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant Sur Singh Gagrai is said to have remained in custody for about ten years against his conviction for seven years under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code Accordingly he (Sur Singh Gagrai) is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Ordered accordingly.