Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 398 (JHR)

Guruwa Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-20

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court: In this Jail Appeal, neither on 15.03.2012 nor today anybody appeared on behalf of the appellant to press the appeal. In the circumstances, Mr. Krishna Shankar, a panel lawyer, is appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the court on behalf of the appellant. Later on: This jail appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.09.2002 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 73 of 1992, convicting the appellant under sections 302/34 and 394 IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under section 302/34 IPC and R.I. for seven years for the offence under section 394 IPC. However, both the sentenced were to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case in short is that Shankar Singh Munda-Informant (PW-2) lodged a fardbeyan on 01.07.1991 at about 11.00 AM before the police that in the previous night at about 8.00 PM, his son Harish Munda (PW-5) came in injured condition and asked him to close the door. In the meantime, two miscreants entered into his house. In the flash of torchlight, the informant identified the appellant as one of them armed with farsa in his hand. Another accused was having a gun in his hand. On demand, the informant gave them some articles and money. They demanded some more amount. The informant silently escaped to the house of one Baldeo and told him about the occurrence. After sometimes when the informant returned to his house, he found that the miscreants had fled away. He found his wife lying dead in the injured condition. His daughter-in-law-Gurubari Mundain (PW-6) told him that the miscreants asked for wine and when she said that it was not available, she was assaulted by the miscreants by lathi. The accused persons took away some ornaments kept concealed in the house. 3. Mr. Krishna Shankar, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. He also said that there are vital contradictions in the evidences. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sardhu Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 5. PW-1 is the doctor who examined the informant-Shankar Singh Munda (PW-2) and found injuries on his person. He also said that there are vital contradictions in the evidences. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Sardhu Mahato, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment. 5. PW-1 is the doctor who examined the informant-Shankar Singh Munda (PW-2) and found injuries on his person. He also examined the son of informant-Harish Munda (PW-5) about which it was mentioned in the FIR that he was also injured by the miscreants. The doctor found several injuries on the person of PW-5 also. 6. PW-2 is the informant who fully supported the case of the prosecution. There is nothing in his cross-examination to disbelieve him. 7. PW-3 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He found multiple sharp cut incised wounds on the person of the deceased which were the cause of death. 8. Shaktidhar Munda (PW-4) is son of the informant and the deceased. He also supported the prosecution case fully. He stated in his deposition that he concealed himself under the cot at the time of the alleged occurrence. There is nothing in his cross-examination to discredit his evidence. 9. Harish Munda (PW-5) is also son of the informant and is an injured witness. He has fully supported the prosecution case and there is no reason to disbelieve him. 10. Guruba Singh Munda (PW-7) is a seizure list witness. PW-8 is inquest witness. PWs-9 & 10 have been tendered for cross-examination. PW-11 is a formal witness. 11. After carefully going through the records and hearing the parties at length, we do not find anything in the cross-examination of the witnesses to disbelieve them. The appellant was clearly identified and he was named in the FIR and in the evidence also. His identification was clearly established and there is nothing on behalf of the appellant to show that he has been wrongly identified by the witnesses or has been falsely implicated in this case. It also appears that the appellant was in custody in connection with another case for the offence under section 395 IPC from where he attended the trial of this case on production warrant. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant. 13. In the result, this appeal is dismissed.