Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 263 (JHR)

Moral Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-22

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
Judgment R.K. Merathia, D.N. Upadhyay. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 278/2000, convicting the appellants under section 302/34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the police recorded Fardbeyan of Lukhi Baskey (P.W-3) at about 1 P.M. on 18.01.2000 in which she said that on the proceeding day i.e. on 17.01.2000, her husband-Sibu Marandi (deceased) went out from the house between 9-10 A.M. for some work. At about 4 P.M. in the evening on that day, P.W.-4 Guduj Soren informed her that the appellants had jointly killed Sibu Marandi by assaulting him with stone and tangi. When the informant reached at the place of occurrence, the appellants abused her and said that Sibu Marandi was going in front of the house of one of the appellants and they have killed him so that the land, for which dispute is going on will be their. It is further alleged that certain other villagers have also seen the occurrence. 3. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned judgement on various grounds. He submitted that the appellant nos. 1 and 3 who have remained in jail for more than 11 years and appellant no. 2 who has remained in jail for more than 8 years by now, are entitled to benefit of doubt. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Amaresh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 5. We are inclined to give benefit of doubt to the appellants for the following reasons. P.W-1-Chandan Kisku has been projected as an eye witness. He inter alia said that he saw the occurrence. He further said that after killing Sibu, he was kept near the door of the appellant-Moral and then he returned to his house. At one place, he said that he is a relative of the informant being her sister's husband, but at other place, he said that the deceased was not his "Sarhu". He said that Moral assaulted with the back portion of kulhari 2-3 times and Laskar and Shiv Charan assaulted 2-3 times on back of the deceased by stone. P.W-2-Som Marandi has also been projected as an eye witness. He said that Moral assaulted with the back portion of kulhari 2-3 times and Laskar and Shiv Charan assaulted 2-3 times on back of the deceased by stone. P.W-2-Som Marandi has also been projected as an eye witness. He inter alia said that he saw the occurrence but he also said that Durga Murmu, the own brother of the appellant-Moral had instituted a case of theft of crop on him and P.W-4 prior to the occurrence, which is going on. He also said that the appellants are related with one other. P.W-3-Lukhi Baskey is the informant. She said that the deceased went out of the house at about 7 A.M. but in fardbeyan she said that he went to the house between 9-10 A.M. She further said that P.W-4 informed him at about 4 P.M. in the evening. P.W-4-Guduj Soren is also an eye witness as per the prosecution but in paragraph 5 he said that he did not see the occurrence from the beginning and when he reached he saw Sibu was lying on the ground with bleeding head injury. Thereafter, he returned to his house and informed the villagers. This witness is relative of the deceased. P.Ws-5, 6, 7 and 8 are hearsay witnesses. P.W.-9-Dharamdeo Sharma is the investigating officer. P.W-10-Binay Saran is the doctor. The doctor found that injury no. 3 i.e. lacerated wound was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and the same was caused by hard and blunt substance; that all injuries were by hard and blunt substance; that injury nos. 1, 2 and 3 were caused by stone pelting or by throwing stone on the deceased; and that injury no. 4 might be caused by fall on hard substance. 6. It is not possible to believe that P.Ws-1, 2 and 4 have actually seen the occurrence. As noticed above, there are vital contradictions in their evidences. Their conduct also appears to be doubtful. The time of occurrence is also not consistent. Even if it is presumed that the occurrence took place at about 10 A.M. or before that, it is not known why the informant was informed at about 4 P.M. and no information was given to the police. On the next day, when the police came on hearing about the murder, the fardbeyan was given by P.W-3. Even if it is presumed that the occurrence took place at about 10 A.M. or before that, it is not known why the informant was informed at about 4 P.M. and no information was given to the police. On the next day, when the police came on hearing about the murder, the fardbeyan was given by P.W-3. P.W-1 who happens to be the relative of the informant, said that he returned to home after seeing the occurrence. He did not inform the informant about the occurrence. From before the occurrence, a case of crop theft filed by the brother of appellant-Moral against P.W-2 and 4 was going on. P.W-4 said that he did not see the occurrence from beginning and when he reached he found Sibu lying with bleeding injury and then he returned to his house. 7. The land dispute between the parties is admitted. The police was not informed within a reasonable time. Only when the police reached on hearing about the murder, fardbeyan was given. There are chances of concoction. 8. After carefully going through the records and after hearing the parties at length, in our opinion, the appellants deserve benefit of doubt. 9. In the result, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2003, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dumka, in Sessions Case No. 278/2000, against the appellants, is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.