Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 305 (JHR)

Suniram Marandi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-02-29

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.-This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 02.09.2002 and order of sentence dated 03.09.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge. Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 92 of 2001, convicting the appellants under Sections 302 and 34, IPC and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The prosecution case in short is as follows: Seeman Tudu-informant (PW 6) lodged a fardbeyan on 8.11.2000 at about 2.00 p.m. that at about 9.00 p.m. when he was in his house alongwith his mother-Kuleen Hansda (deceased) and sister-Maarinila Tudu (PW 3), both the appellants came there and asked for liquor. The deceased gave them one bottle of liquor. Thereafter, the accused persons were consuming it. While they were drinking, the deceased saw pistol of appellant No.1-Suniram Marandi. The appellants warned her not say about the pistol to anybody. The deceased told them why they were roaming with pistol. The appellants started going away without paying for liquor. The deceased stopped them for money. The appellants caught her. The appellant No.1-Suniram Marandi inserted the pistol in the mouth of the deceased and fired due to which, she fell and died. The informant (PW 6) and PW 3 wanted to apprehend the appellants but the appellants aimed pistol on them. The appellants fled away towards the jungle. It is lastly alleged that due to demand for payment of liquor, the appellants killed the deceased by pistol. 3. Mr. Jay Prakash Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailing the impugned judgment on various grounds, submitted as follows: The prosecution has not been able to prove the genesis of the case. In other words, nothing has been recovered from the place of occurrence to show that the deceased used to prepare and sell liquor. The blood stained soil, weapon and pillets were not seized and sent for chemical analysis. Due to enmity, the appellants have been falsely implicated. The investigation is perfunctory. As per the prosecution witnesses, one gunshot injury was made, whereas two injuries were found by the doctor in the postmortem report. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. The appellant No.1 has remained in jail for about 11 years and appellant No. 2 has remained in jail for about 05 years. The investigation is perfunctory. As per the prosecution witnesses, one gunshot injury was made, whereas two injuries were found by the doctor in the postmortem report. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. The appellant No.1 has remained in jail for about 11 years and appellant No. 2 has remained in jail for about 05 years. He relied on 2012 (1) JCR 140 : 2011 SC 1736: 2003 (3) JWR 138 (DB) and 1998 (2) PWR 571 in support of his argument. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel appearing for the State, supporting the impugned judgment, submitted as follows: The prosecution is consistent from the stage of FIR, till the stage of evidence in Court. PWs 3, 5 and 6 are eyewitnesses. Their version has been fully supported with the other material evidence brought on record including the medical evidence. In the facts and circumstances of this case, even if there was some lacuna in the investigation, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside on that ground. He relied on (2004) 3 SCC 654 . 5. PWs 1 and 2 are the inquest witnesses. PW 3 is the eyewitness named in the FIR. PW 4 is the hearsay witness who saw the appellants fleeing away from the place of occurrence. PW 5, husband of the deceased, is an eyewitness. PW 6, the informant, is also an eyewitness. PWs - 7 and 10 are hearsay witnesses. PW 8 is the doctor who conducted post-mortem. The doctor found injury caused by fire-arm such as pistol. On reading the medical evidence, it appears that two injuries are result of one fire-arm injury as narrated by the eyewitness. PW 9 is the Investigating Officer. 6. The FIR was lodged within five hours of the alleged occurrence. The defence has not been able to show anything indicating false implication due to enmity. According to the defence, the deceased was the mediator in the marriage between the sister of the appellant No. 1-Suniram Marandi with Polush-who died due to illness; and as the appellant No. 1 was asking to return the utensils given in the marriage, there were chances of false implication due to such enmity. In our opinion, such defence is not sufficient to accept that the prosecution will falsely implicate the appellants screening the actual culprits. In our opinion, such defence is not sufficient to accept that the prosecution will falsely implicate the appellants screening the actual culprits. Specific role has been assigned to the appellants in the FIR that both of them caught the deceased when she asked for payment of liquor and the appellant No. 1 killed her by causing fire-arm injury in her face. PW 6, the informant, has fully supported the version in the FIR. PW 3, sister of the informant, has also fully supported the prosecution case. As per the FIR, she was also present in the house and saw the occurrence. It is true that the name of the husband of the deceased (PW 5) was not mentioned in the FIR as an eyewitness, but the FIR is not an encyclopedia and moreover, PW 5, the husband of the deceased, has fully supported the prosecution case and there is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve or discard his evidence. Similarly, there is nothing in the cross-examination of other eyewitnesses (PWs 3 and 6) to create any doubt on their testimony. 7. In view of the direct, evidence of the eyewitnesses supported by the medical evidence, even if there was some lacuna in the investigation in not seizing the blood stained soil and weapon and, the pillets said to have been recovered from the body of the deceased, bottles of liquor or ingredients used in making it, the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside and on that ground, it cannot be said that the genesis of the case has not been proved. The prosecution witnesses have clearly stated that the deceased used to prepare liquor and the people used to come and purchase it. There is nothing in the cross-examination of the witnesses to show that such statements were doubtful. 8. The judgments relied on behalf of the appellants were delivered keeping in view the facts and circumstances of those cases. Some sentences here or there cannot be read in isolation. They should be read in entirety. In our opinion, the said judgments relied upon on behalf of the appellants are of no help to them in view of the facts and circumstances of this case. The alleged occurrence has taken place within the house where the eyewitnesses also reside and they are the natural eyewitnesses and only because they are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. 9. The alleged occurrence has taken place within the house where the eyewitnesses also reside and they are the natural eyewitnesses and only because they are relatives of the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded. 9. After hearing the parties at length and carefully going through the records, we are satisfied that the prosecution has been able to prove it's case against the appellants for the offence under Sections 302/34, IPC beyond all reasonable doubts. 10. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The appellant No. 2 Raja Hansda is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender himself before the learned Court below forthwith failing which all steps should be taken to apprehend him. Appeal dismissed.