Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 26 (JHR)

Ramu Ganjhu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-06

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No. 33 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the appellant having been found guilty for committing murder of Kandani Devi has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of rupees five thousand and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the morning of 01.08.1999 while the mother-in-law of the informant was sitting outside near the door of the kitchen and the informant was about to leave home for taking fertilizers to her field, the appellant came with a tangi and started abusing the mother-in-law of the informant. On seeing this, the informant (PW1) hided herself and saw the appellant assaulting the deceased with the tangi on her neck. The neck was almost severed off the body. Therafter, the appellant washed off the tangi which was smeared with blood. Meanwhile, the informant raised alarm. On hearing alarms, Sita Ganju (PW 3) and other witnesses came over there and they saw the appellant washing off the tangi. On such accusation, the case was lodged by PW 1 which was registered as Itkhori P.S. Case No. 71 of 1999 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 3. The matter was taken up for investigation. During investigation, the Investigating Officer, who has not been examined in this case, prepared inquest report (Exhibit P5) and sent the dead body for post mortem examination which was done by Dr. Satyendra Kumar Choudhary. On holding autopsy, the doctor did find the following ante mortem injuries :- “The neck at the level of thyroid cartilage sharply cut transversely cut from anterior aspect to the posterior aspect. The vein, muscles, tissue, trachea, oesophagus, vessels and bone (verterbra) are cut sharply.” 4. According to the doctor, death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above noted injuries caused by hard and sharp cutting substances. The post mortem report has been proved as Ext. P/2. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which the cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. According to the doctor, death of the deceased was caused due to shock and haemorrhage on account of the above noted injuries caused by hard and sharp cutting substances. The post mortem report has been proved as Ext. P/2. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted upon which the cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. Upon commitment of the case, the appellant was put on trial to face the charge of committing murder of the deceased Kandani Devi. 5. The prosecution examined altogether seven witnesses. Of them, PW 7 is a formal witness who has proved formal FIR, fard beyan and the inquest report as Exts. P/3, P/4 and P/5 respectively. PW1 is the informant whereas PWs 2 to 5 are the persons who on hearing the alarm raised by the informant PW 1 reached at the place of the occurrence and saw the appellant washing off the blood stained tangi. PW 1 has testified in the same manner as she had made statement in the FIR. 6. The trial court having found the informant PW1 and other witnesses trustworthy, recorded the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant which is under challenge in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the conviction is based on the sole testimony of the eye witness PW1 who never appears to be wholly trustworthy as her testimony is not in consonance with the statement made in the FIR. Further, it was submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined and as such, the case of the appellant has been prejudiced. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that this case can be said to be a full proof case, as the testimony of the informant or eye witness not only gets corroboration from her earlier version made in the FIR but also from the medical evidence and part of the testimony further gets corroboration from other witnesses, PWs 2-5. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with a view expressed by the learned counsel for the State. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are in agreement with a view expressed by the learned counsel for the State. It is PW 1, the daughter-in-law of the deceased who has testified that while she was leaving home for taking fertilizers to the field, she saw her mother-in-law, Kanadani Devi (the deceased) sitting outside the door of the kitchen where the appellant came armed with tangi and started abusing her mother-in-law. There upon he gave a blow on the neck of the deceased as a result of which, her neck got almost severed off the body. After assaulting, the appellant started washing off his tangi smeared with blood. While he was washing off the blood stained tangi, the witnesses Pws. 2 to 5 on hearing the alarm being raised by PW1 reached over there and saw the appellant washing off the tangi smeared with blood. We do not find anything in the cross examination to disbelieve the testimony either of PW1 or other witnesses PWs 2 to 5. The testimony of PW1 gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the doctor did find that the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage was transversely cut from the interior aspect to the posterior aspect: the body had been separated from the neck. In such event, when PW1 appears to be fully trustworthy, non examination of the Investigating Officer does not in any way affect the case of the prosecution adversely. Furthermore, nothing has been shown before us as to how the case of the prosecution gets prejudiced on account of non-examination of the investigating officer. 10. Accordingly, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the order of conviction and sentence of the appellant. We do not find any infirmity with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, it is affirmed. This appeal stands dismissed.