Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 757 (JHR)

Dukru Laguri v. State of Jharkhand

2012-05-15

D.N.UPADHYAY, R.K.MERATHIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court : This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.4.2003 and 30.4.2003 respectively passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 1, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2001 whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Further, the appellant has also been directed to pay fine of rupees four thousand and in default of payment of fine, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Prosecution case, in short, is that the informant-(PW1) Ludari Tiri lodged fard beyan with the Police on 23.5.2002 at about 8.15 p.m. in the hospital that the appellant, the neighbour of the informant, was ill for about a month and he suspected that her husband Suren Tiria practised witch-craft as a result of which he had fallen ill. For this reason, there was quarrel between them and on that day (23.5.2002), he was discharged from the hospital at about 2.00 p.m. While her husband was sleeping on the veranda of his house, she was in the room. On hearing some noise, she came out and saw the appellant coming with an axe in his hand towards the veranda where his husband was sleeping. Suddenly, the appellant gave a tangi blow on the head of her husband causing bleeding injuries. When he tried to get up, the appellant again inflicted injury. She raised alarms. The neighbours assembled. The appellant fled away with the blood stained tangi. Her husband, who was unconscious, was taken for treatment to Kiriburi Hospital where he died on the next day (24.5.2002). 3. On the basis of the said fard beyan of the informant Ludri Tiria (PW1), Kiriburu PS Case No. 13 of 2001 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the appellant who faced the trial and was convicted as aforesaid. 4. Mr. Ananda Sen, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment on various grounds and submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts. PW1 is the solitary eye witness projected by the prosecution, but she cannot be believed as the eye witness in view of material discrepancies in her fard beyan, statements made before the police and the statement made before the court. There was only one injury on the head of the deceased. PW1 is the solitary eye witness projected by the prosecution, but she cannot be believed as the eye witness in view of material discrepancies in her fard beyan, statements made before the police and the statement made before the court. There was only one injury on the head of the deceased. He further submitted that the appellant has remained in jail for about 11 years and deserves benefit of doubt. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State has supported the impugned judgment. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully going through the records, in our view, the prosecution has fully proved its cased against the appellant. The appellant who had come with intention to commit murder inflicted injuries with the axe on the head of the deceased. Intention is to be gathered from the weapon used and part of the body chosen for inflicting injuries. The deceased was sleeping when the injury was inflicted. On the basis of minor variations in the statement of the informant (PW1), the prosecution case cannot be brushed aside. There is no reason for false implication of the appellant. The medical evidence fully support the prosecution case. Dr. Munna Kumar (PW6) who attended the injured first, found four injuries out of which three were on the head, .i. e. on the vital part of the body. There was also one abrasion on the right palm. Dr. lalit Minz (PW4) who conducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased also found fatal injuries on the head, caused by heavy weapon, like axe which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. The other witnesses have also supported the prosecution case. It is the quality of evidence which is to be considered and not the quantity. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of the eye witness PW1. 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 in Sessions Trial No. 246 of 2001. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.