Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 674 (JHR)

Ramnath Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-13

D.N.PATEL, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT Per D.N. Patel, ACJ.- The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 13.8.2003 and order of sentence dated 14.8.2003 passed by Sri Prasanna Kumar Dubey, learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2000, whereby the present appellant has been convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default further, rigorous imprisonment for two years has been awarded. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that Puhup Singh Munda (PW 6) informed police on 5.10.1999 that he and his nephew namely, Sahdeo Munda (deceased) had gone at the house of Ramnath Munda (present appellant) of village Hunta of District-Ranchi (now Khunti). The present appellant had married with the sister of wife of Sahdeo Munda (deceased) about 7 to 10 years ago. Wife of the present appellant had no issue, and therefore, puja ceremony was to be carried out in the house of the present appellant. On the day of incident at the house of the appellant, the informant, the appellant and the deceased were present. Appellant had insisted not to carry out puja and ultimately they consumed country-made l1quor (popularly known as haria) and after consuming said drink. it is the case of the prosecution that the present appellant brought sharp-cutting instrument from his house which is known as 'tangi' and he assaulted the deceased Sahdeo Munda who tried to run away but, the present appellant chased him up to the house of one Shri Narayan Munda (PW 2) and ultimately caused injuries upon him by sharp-cutting instrument and killed Sahdeo Munda, and therefore. a fardbeyan was given to the police by Puhup Singh Munda which was reduced in writing and First Information Report was lodged. Investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. Charge-sheet was filed against the present appellant and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2000 and on the basis of depositions given by PW 1 to PW 7, the learned trial Court has convicted and punished the present appellant for life imprisonment for causing murder of the deceased for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in case of default further rigorous imprisonment for two years has been awarded. 3. We have heard the counsel appearing for the appellant who has mainly submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the two star witnesses, PW 6 and PW 7, who are said to be the eye-witnesses, are in fact not the eye-witnesses at all and there are major omissions and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, and hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW 6 is the informant. Looking to the fardbeyan given by PW 6, he has narrated clearly the whole incident as if he is an eye-witness. He has given the name of one Sri Narayan Munda (PW 2) in whose house the murder has taken place. Every detail has been given in the First Information Report, but the name of PW 7 has not been referred at all. Moreover, in the deposition of PW 6, this so called eyewitness has not stated where the murder has taken place. The place of the murder has not been proved by the prosecution at all. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW 6 the informant was at the house of the present appellant with the deceased for puja ceremony, and thereafter, the present appellant tried to murder Sahdeo Munda, and Sahdeo Munda tried to save himself and ran away. Appellant chased Sahdeo Munda, and thereafter, where the murder has taken place is not referred at all in the deposition before the learned trial Court, whereas in the First Information Report, this very witness has stated that the murder has taken place in the house of one Sri Narayan Munda (PW 2). Such a major aspect of the matter has been omitted in the deposition given by the PW 6, and therefore, this is a contradiction. Such a major aspect of the matter has been omitted in the deposition given by the PW 6, and therefore, this is a contradiction. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the PW 6 is in fact not an eye-witness at all, because, even though the Court has put a query, where the murder has taken place, to this PW 6 has answered that he is unable to point out where the murder has taken place. Whereas in the First Information Report clearly the house of one Sri Narayan Munda (PW 2) has been mentioned. This is significant omission, and therefore, he is not an eye-witness at all. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, and hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the so-called eye-witness PW 6 was at the residence of the appellant, whereas deceased was chased by the appellant as per the case of the prosecution. In which direction and where the deceased has gone away, at whose house he has ran away, whether the place of scene of offence was visible from the house of the appellant or not, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution. The Investigating Officer has not been examined, and therefore, the distance between the house of the appellant and the place of scene of offence is not proved by the prosecution, mainly for the reason that other witness, who is PW 7 spoke something else about the scene of offence. Thus, there is gross discrepancy as per the deposition of PW 6 and looking to the First Information Report about the place of murder. 6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that so far as PW 7 is concerned, she is not referred in F.I.R. as eye-witness though F.I.R. has been given in much detail by PW 6. Every detail has been mentioned by the informant, but the presence of PW 7 at the house of the appellant has not been shown at all in the F.I.R.. Moreover, looking to the deposition of PW 7 she has clearly narrated in paragraph No. 1 that she was at the house of the appellant. Every detail has been mentioned by the informant, but the presence of PW 7 at the house of the appellant has not been shown at all in the F.I.R.. Moreover, looking to the deposition of PW 7 she has clearly narrated in paragraph No. 1 that she was at the house of the appellant. The appellant chased the deceased and deceased had ran away to the house of somebody else i.e. Narayan Munda. The house of Narayan (PW 2) was surrounded by bush. This narration of the house of Narayan has been given in paragraph No. 2 of the deposition of PW 7, and therefore, the whole incident might have taken place in the house of one Narayan Munda. Now, the prosecution has failed to prove what is the distance between the place of scene of offence and the house of the appellant where PW 7 was standing and the house was visible or not. Moreover, there is a bush and behind the bush everything has taken place. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. PW 7 is not an eye-witness at all. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW 6 and PW 7 are narrating different place of murder. So far as PW 6 is concerned, he is narrating that murder has taken place at the courtyard of the house of the appellant. When the Court has asked at whose courtyard the murder has taken place he is unable to point out, whereas PW 7 says it is the courtyard of Narayan (PW 2) where the murder has taken place. Thus, it appears that PW 7 whose presence is not referred in the F.I.R. who is also narrating the place of occurrence differently than PW 6, and therefore, he is also not a reliable and trustworthy witness. 7. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that looking to the paragraph Nos. 10, 12 and the last paragraph of deposition of PW 6, he is thoroughly an ignorant witness. He do not know who is appellant, he does not know where the murder has taken place and he is a tutored witness, therefore, he is not a reliable witness. 8. It is further• submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW Nos. He do not know who is appellant, he does not know where the murder has taken place and he is a tutored witness, therefore, he is not a reliable witness. 8. It is further• submitted by the counsel for the appellant that PW Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the State-APP who has submitted that the case of prosecution is based upon the depositions of two eye-witnesses, who are PW 6 and PW 7. Looking to the depositions of these two eye-witnesses, they have clearly narrated the role played by this appellant that by using a sharp-cutting instrument called tangi he has committed the murder of the deceased. The injuries were caused at the vital part of, the body i.e. neck and head and there is enough corroboration by the medical evidence of PW 1 who has carried out post-mortem upon the body of the deceased. This aspect of the matter has been correctly appreciated by the learned trial Court, and hence, this Court may not interfere with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 10. Counsel for the State submitted that the medical evidence given by the PW 1 is corroborating the depositions of PW 6 & PW 7. There are injuries on the head and neck upon the body of the deceased as per the post-mortem report. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is in jail since last 13 years 7 months and 9 days as on today. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present appellant is in jail since last 13 years 7 months and 9 days as on today. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record. it appears that PW 6 has informed the police on 5.10.1999 that he along with his nephew Sahdeo Munda (deceased) was present at the house of the appellant for puja ceremony and puja ceremony was not to be performed as per the appellant, ultimately country-made liquor was offered, which they consumed and thereafter the appellant brought from his house a sharp-cutting instrument called tangi and tried to kill Sahdeo Munda who ran away, but the appellant chased him and caused injury by tangi on the head and neck and Sahdeo Munda expired on the spot. 13. Looking to the F.I.R. and looking to the fardbeyan given by PW 6, it appears that in detail the whole incident has been narrated by PW 6 in his fardbeyan who was present there at the time of murder of the deceased Sahdeo Munda. Sahdeo Munda had tried to run away and he had ran into the house of one Narayan Munda, but the appellant chased him and caused the murder of the deceased by causing him injuries at the courtyard of the house of one Narayan Munda, but looking to the deposition given by PW 6 before the learned trial Court, it appears that there are major omissions in his deposition. Nowhere, this PW 6 has stated that in whose courtyard the murder has taken place, whether it was the courtyard of the appellant himself or the courtyard of Narayan Munda. PW 6 was stationed at the house of the appellant and he never ran along with the appellant. Looking to the F.I.R., after the chase, the appellant reached at the house of one Narayan Munda (PW 2) where the murder has taken place, whereas in the deposition of the trial Court he has narrated that the murder has been taken place at the courtyard and there is no narration about whose courtyard, and therefore, the learned trial Court put a specific question and it has been answered that he does not know at whose courtyard the murder has taken place. This is a major omission on his part which tantamounts to contradiction as per explanation under Section 162, Cr PC Moreover, looking to paragraph Nos. 10, 12 and 13 of the deposition of PW 6 he has clearly narrated that he do not know who is Ramnath Munda (appellant). He has also stated that he has never met or seen the appellant ever before nor he is knowing anyone else. He has also not narrated whether the wife of the appellant was also at the house of the appellant. In paragraph No. 1 of the deposition PW 6 has stated that at the house of the appellant only three persons were present-the appellant, PW 6 and Sahdeo Munda (deceased). There is no reference of presence of the wife of the appellant either in the F.I.R. or in the deposition. Looking to these evidences and looking to the cross-examination of this PW 6, he is not an eye-witness to the incident at all and he is untrustworthy and unreliable witness. Looking to the deposition of PW 7 who is the wife of the appellant, she has stated that PW 6 and Sahdeo Munda had gone for puja ceremony, but puja ceremony had not taken place and the present appellant caused murder of Sahdeo Munda by tangi. Now, looking to paragraph Nos. 1 and 2, it appears that this PW 7 was at the house of the appellant i.e. in her own house. The present appellant chased Sahdeo Munda and the murder has taken place at the courtyard of house of one Narayan Munda. The courtyard of Narayan Munda was surrounded by bush. What is the distance between the two is not proved by the prosecution i.e. the distance between the house of the appellant and the house of Narayan Munda. Therefore, whether the PW 7 can see this incident or not is also doubtful, especially when the courtyard of the Narayan Munda was surrounded by bush. Moreover, looking to the deposition of PW 7, she has narrated that the whole incident has taken place at the courtyard of one Narayan, whereas looking to the deposition of PW 6, he has shown ignorance, in whose courtyard the murder has taken place. PW 7's presence is not referred in F.I.R. nor in the deposition of PW 6. Moreover, looking to the deposition of PW 7, she has narrated that the whole incident has taken place at the courtyard of one Narayan, whereas looking to the deposition of PW 6, he has shown ignorance, in whose courtyard the murder has taken place. PW 7's presence is not referred in F.I.R. nor in the deposition of PW 6. The Investigating Officer has also not been examined to prove the distance between the house of the appellant and the courtyard of one Narayan, where the murder has taken place as per the prosecution. The inquest Panchnama witness who is PW 4 has clearly stated in the paragraph No. 1 of the deposition that the police has simply taken his signature, but no Panchnama was drawn in his presence. Where the dead body was lying, is also not proved by the prosecution. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove even inquest Panchnama or where the dead body was lying. Even independent witness who is villager PW 5 did not support the case of the prosecution. 14. Thus, looking to overall deposition of PW 7 and her cross-examination, we find she is not the eye-witness at all and she is unreliable and untrustworthy witness. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. Looking to the deposition of PW 2, it appears that he is Narayan Munda and as per the case of the prosecution, the deceased was ultimately murdered at the house of this witness after chasing him by this appellant. Looking to the deposition of PW 2 the fact has not been proved by the prosecution that the murder has taken place at the courtyard of this witness, PW 2. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the place of murder as stated by so-called two eye-witnesses PW 6 & PW 7 who were at the house of the appellant. Thus, nobody knows whether the, place of murder was clearly visible from the house of the appellant or not. Looking to the totality of the prosecution witnesses, depositions and evidences on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, nobody knows whether the, place of murder was clearly visible from the house of the appellant or not. Looking to the totality of the prosecution witnesses, depositions and evidences on record, the prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder committed by this appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. Looking to overall evidences of prosecution witnesses especially of PW 6 and PW 7, we find they are untrustworthy and unreliable and they are not the eye-witness at all, and therefore, we are not discussing the medical evidence and the nature of injuries at all because PW 1 is a doctor and he is not an eye-witness at all, and therefore, there is no question of matching injuries with the weapon used. 15. The inquest Panchnama, on which the learned APP stressed is also not assisting the case of the prosecution mainly for the reason that Panchnama witness, who is PW 4 has clearly stated in his deposition before the learned trial Court that the Panchnama was never prepared in his presence, therefore, the dead body was at whose courtyard is not proved by the prosecution. Moreover, Investigating Officer has also not been examined at all in this case. Looking to these two aspects of the matter, the inquest Panchnama is also cannot brought at home the offence of murder alleged to have been committed by the appellant. Production of evidence-Panchnama alone is not helpful unless it is properly proved by the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove the offence of murder, to have been committed by this Appellant, beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court, and hence, judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the 1 st Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 37 of 2000 dated 13/14th August, 2003. 16. The present appellant shall be released from custody forthwith, if his presence in jail is not required for any other offence. 17. This criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of. Appeal allowed.