Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 61 (JHR)

Kushnu Banda v. State of Jharkhand

2012-01-10

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court.- This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 31.5.2003 and 3.6.2003 and respectively passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge. Fast Track Court III. Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 166 of 2001/38 of 2003 whereby all the appellants have been held guilty for commission of offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC and accordingly each of the appellants have been convicted under Sections 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 two years each. However, the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that Sanatan Hembrom (PW 7) informant lodged a written report with the Police on 24.10.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. to the effect that Raimuni (PW 1) had stated before him that the appellant Raghunath Marla had been behaving like a mad person and was saying that he killed somebody and he was roaming with a bhujali. On this, the villagers wanted to know as to what had happened. Then, PW 1 Raimuni Devi disclosed on 23.10.2000 that on 15.10.2000, Birendra Purti (deceased) was killed by the appellants behind her house at about 8.10 p.m. and his dead body was thrown in the jungle by them. The appellants also threatened PW 7-informant, PW 3 Suru Hembrom and PW 4 Joma Kui with dire consequences and asked them not to disclose about the occurrence to any body. It was further stated that the deceased was a labour contractor and on the date of occurrence, he along with some persons had come and had taken Haria (country made liquor) and was talking about finding labourers and due to dispute over payment, there was altercation between the parties. During this, the occurrence took place in the courtyard (aangan) of PW 3 Suru Hembrom, where the appellants after assaulting the deceased, killed him and threw his dead body in the jungle. These things were informed to the informant (PW 7) by Raimuni Devi (PW 1). It was alleged in the FIR that the appellants had killed the deceased due to their dispute over payment of money and they had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the jungle in order to conceal evidence. 3. These things were informed to the informant (PW 7) by Raimuni Devi (PW 1). It was alleged in the FIR that the appellants had killed the deceased due to their dispute over payment of money and they had thrown the dead body of the deceased in the jungle in order to conceal evidence. 3. On the basis of the said fardbeyan of the informant (PW 7), Goelkera PS Case No. 20 of 2000 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellants who faced the trial and were convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. P.K.Naik, learned counsel for the appellants assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that there are vital contradictions in the evidence of alleged eye witnesses PW 1 Raimuni Devi, PW 3 Sum Hembrom and PW 4 Jema Kui, and that there is nothing on the record to show that the dead body recovered was that of the deceased. The doctor (PW 8) who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased opined that the death was within one week from the date of post mortem i.e. 25.10.2000, which means that the death occurred on 18.10.2000, but as per the prosecution case, the death occurred on 15.10.2000. He further submitted that Dr S.K.Prasad (PW 8) did not find any injury on vital parts of the dead body of the deceased and opined that the death was due to C.R failure. It was also submitted that according to the prospection case, during the course of dispute over money, the alleged occurrence took place. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that In course of examination of the appellants under Section 313, Cr.P.C. it was not asked that PW 3 had specifically stated that the appellant Raghunath Marla had a bhujali and the other co-accused appellants had danda in their hands, and in the said statement, no question was asked from the appellants about the weapons held by them in their hands. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt or, at best, they could be convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they have remained in jail for about eleven years. 6. He submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the appellants deserve the benefit of doubt or, at best, they could be convicted under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code, for which they have remained in jail for about eleven years. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that PWs 1, 3 and 4 are independent eye witnesses and they have fully supported the prosecution case and their evidence cannot be discarded or disbelieved. He also pointed out that the Doctor PW 8 in his evidence has stated that the time elapsed since death may extend up to 10 to 12 days. He further submitted that as per prosecution case, the deceased was done to death and his dead body was thrown into the jungle and therefore, it cannot be said that the case is covered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. It is true that there are some centradictions in the evidence of PWs 1 and 3 to the effect that PW 1 had stated that the deceased was brought by the appellants, whereas PW 3 has stated that the deceased was sleeping on a cot in the aangan, but this is not sufficient for disbelieving the prosecution case. It further appears that the independent eye witnesses PWs 1, 3 and 4 have corroborated each other to the extent that all the appellants assaulted the deceased and the appellant Raghunath Marla assaulted with bhujali and others with danda. PWs 1, 3 and 4 have also corroborated in their evidence about the presence of each other. There is no reason to disbelieve these Pws. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on the identification of the appellants. 8. It appears that in the statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. question was asked that according to the witnesses, the appellants had committed the crime together by killing the deceased by bhujali and danda and they threw the dead body into tile jungle to conceal the evidence. The appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the statement made under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 9. The appellants have been convicted with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the statement made under Section 313, Cr.P.C. 9. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, 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. 166 of 2001/ 38 of 2003. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby affirmed. This appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.