Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1324 (JHR)

Gangaram Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-26

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Samu Tudu. The Trial Court, having found the appellant guilty for the charge, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 27.01.2004 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence. 2. The case of the prosecution, is that, Samu Tudu, the father of the informant-Jona Tudu (P.W. 2) had come to the house of the informant a few days before. On 17.11.2002 while the informant was inside her house, she heard distress sound of her father coming from outside of the house. On hearing, when she came outside of the house she found this appellant assaulting her father till he died. When the informant tried to rescue her father, the appellant also made an attempt to assault her but she fled from there. 3. In that night itself, Lalan Kumar, the officer-in-charge of Barhait Police Station when received information of deceased being killed in the village, he came to the village and recorded the fardbeyan at 2.00 a.m on 18.11.2002 wherein the informant (P.W. 2) stated about the incident, as has been stated above. On the basis of said fardbeyan (Ext. 2) a formal F.I.R (Ext. 3) was drawn and case was registered. 4. The said Lalan Kumar, S.I, Barhait Police Station took up the investigation, during which, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext. 4). Thereupon the I.O sent the dead body for post mortem examination, which was held by Dr. Lalit Mohan Prasad, who on holding autopsy on the dead body of the deceased did find following injuries on the person of the deceased: “(i).Bruises 4” X ½”, 4 ½ “ X ½”, 3” X ½” obliquely placed on left side of chest with underlying fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs of left side. (ii).Lacerated wound on lower lips on left side 1”X1/4”X1/4”.” On dissection of the chest, the cavity was found full of blood and blood-clots. The lungs on the left side were lacerated at three places along with its pleura. All the chambers of the heart were empty. The right lung was found pale. 5. (ii).Lacerated wound on lower lips on left side 1”X1/4”X1/4”.” On dissection of the chest, the cavity was found full of blood and blood-clots. The lungs on the left side were lacerated at three places along with its pleura. All the chambers of the heart were empty. The right lung was found pale. 5. The doctor (P.W-1) issued post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-1) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of above noted injuries, which were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. 6. Meanwhile, the I.O. recorded the statement of the witnesses. On completion of investigation, when the charge-sheet was submitted, the court took cognizance of the offence against the appellant. In due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 7. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case has examined altogether eight witnesses. Of them, P.W. 2-Jaina Tudu is the informant, who in her evidence has deposed almost in the same manner as she had made statement in her fardbeyan. P.W. 3-Rani Marandi, P.W. 4-Joba Marandi, P.W. 5Asha Murmu and P.W. 6-Toyla Murmu are the hearsay witnesses, who derived knowledge of the occurrence from the informant-Jona Tudu (P.W.2). P.W. 7Asha Murmu, an eye-witness, is the full brother of the appellant, who has testified that when he came out of his house he found his brother – Gangaram Murmu (appellant) assaulting the deceased with lathi. However, this witness in his cross-examination has testified that he never saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. 8. Upon closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant were put to the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied it. 9. Thereupon, the trial Court having placed its reliance on the testimony of P.W. 2 and also on the testimony of P.W. 7, did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, as aforesaid, which is under challenge. 10. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the appellant is said to have killed the deceased but the prosecution has never come forward with any motive on account of which the appellant committed murder. 10. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that though the appellant is said to have killed the deceased but the prosecution has never come forward with any motive on account of which the appellant committed murder. In this regard, it was submitted that neither there was any enmity with the deceased nor the appellant was inimical in any manner with the deceased and, hence, there does not appear to be any reason on the part of the appellant to kill the deceased. But the trial Court did not take into account this aspect of the matter and thereby committed illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is fit to be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that trial Court has put reliance on the testimony of P.W. 7, who in his examination-in-chief though has testified that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased but he in his cross-examination has categorically stated that when he reached at the place of occurrence, the deceased was lying died, which is indicative of the fact that P.W. 7 had never seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and under the circumstances when the prosecution case is based on the testimony of one witness, who never speaks about any motive on account of which, the deceased was done to death by the appellant, the trial Court should not have recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant. 11. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that it is the case of direct evidence where P.W. 2, the informant, has categorically deposed that she saw this appellant, residing in neighborhood, assaulting her father causing injuries resulting into his death. In that event even if the prosecution does not come with any motive, it hardly affects the case of the prosecution adversely. In that event even if the prosecution does not come with any motive, it hardly affects the case of the prosecution adversely. Further submission was made to the effect that the trial Court has rightly put reliance not only on the testimony of P.W 2 but also on the testimony of P.W. 7 as P.W. 7 in his examination-in-chief has categorically deposed that he saw this appellant, his full brother, assaulting the deceased and then in the cross-examination he did testify that he did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased which cannot be accepted for the reason that P.W. 7 after deposing the fact which he had seen may have realized that it may put his full brother to trouble did depose something favouring the appellant as the appellant was the full brother of P.W. 7. Therefore, trial Court, after putting reliance on the testimonies of P.W. 2 and P.W. 7, has rightly convicted the appellant and hence, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, we fully endorse the view of learned counsel appearing for the State. It is the case of the prosecution, as has been testified by the informant-P.W. 2 that on the day of occurrence while she was in her house, the deceased, the father of the informant, who had come to the house of P.W. 2 a few days before, was at the outside of the house from where she heard his distress sound being raised on being assaulted by the appellant. On hearing distress sound when the informant-P.W. 2 came outside of the house she saw this appellant assaulting the deceased who went on assaulting till the deceased died. There appears to be nothing in the testimony of P.W. 2 to disbelieve the testimony of the informant (P.W. 2). The testimony of P.W. 2 gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W. 7-Asha Murmu, who happens to be the full brother of the appellant. P.W. 7 in his examination-in-chief has testified in clear terms that when he came out of the house he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with lathi. However, he immediately in his cross-examination has changed his words, whereby he has testified that he did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased. P.W. 7 in his examination-in-chief has testified in clear terms that when he came out of the house he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with lathi. However, he immediately in his cross-examination has changed his words, whereby he has testified that he did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased. That version of P.W. 7 is not acceptable for the reason that he in his examination-in-chief has categorically stated that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. That version gets corroboration from the testimony of P.W. 2 as has been testified in the cross-examination wherein she has stated that the appellant went on assaulting the deceased till the appellant was taken by P.W. 7 to his house. Under the circumstances, whatever P.W. 7 has testified in his cross-examination that does not appear to be true statement of fact and hence never warrants to be accepted. Further the testimony of P.W. 2 gets corroboration from the medical evidence where the injuries found on the person of the deceased have been found by the doctor to have been caused by the hard blunt substance whereby two ribs were found broken and the injuries caused by the appellant were sufficient, according to doctor, to cause death. 13. Thus, it does appear that the witnesses as aforesaid did see the appellant assaulting the deceased resulting into his death. In such event if the prosecution has not come with the case of any motive it hardly affects the case of the prosecution adversely. Under the circumstances, the submission made on behalf of defence in this regard is not acceptable. 14. Under the circumstances, we do find that the trial Court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is hereby affirmed. 15. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.