Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 27 (JHR)

Mundrika Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-06

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
JUDGMENT :- This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and and order of sentence passed on 06/06/2003 and 07/06/2003 respectively, in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2001, by the Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, whereby and whereunder the trial Court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Fagu Singh, convicted him for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 148 of the Indian Penal Code and, thereby, he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Further he was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years for the offence under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as has been made out on behalf of the prosecution, is that on 13/10/1998 at about 06.00 a.m, the informant (PW7) left village alongwith his father Fagu Singh (the deceased) for watching his paddy field. In that course, when they reached near the house of the appellant Mundrika Singh, they saw Mundrika Singh, Ram Swaroop Singh, Sarju Singh and 5 more persons, named in the FIR as well as 1011 unknown persons, variously armed, coming out of the house of the appellant Mundrika Singh and started chasing them. He as well as his father ran away from there towards road where they surrounded his father Fagu Singh and assaulted him with 'Gandasa', 'Lathi' and 'Sword' as a result of which his father fell down and then the appellant chopped off the neck of his father. The informant having seen this, fled from there and came to Daltonganj where he met with Fauzdar Singh (PW2) in the Court premises and told about the occurrence, where they had a discussion with the lawyer and then the informant (PW7) and Fauzdar Singh (PW2) came to a school where Krisna Singh (PW1) had been a teacher and then all the three persons came to the place of occurrence and then went to the police station where the informant Arun Kumar Singh (PW7) gave his fardbeyan (Ext.2), on the basis of which a formal FIR was drawn against eight accused persons including the appellant Mundrika Singh. 3. The matter was taken up for investigation by PW10 Mokhtar Singh, who did visit the place of occurrence where he held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext.5). 3. The matter was taken up for investigation by PW10 Mokhtar Singh, who did visit the place of occurrence where he held inquest on the dead body and prepared inquest report (Ext.5). During inspection of the place of occurrence, the I.O seized earth smeared with blood under the seizure list (Ext.4). The dead body was sent for Post Mortem Examination, which was conducted by Dr. N.C. Agarwal (PW8) on 14/10/1998. The Doctor during Post Mortem examination did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: Incised Wound “(i) 10” x 3” x vertebra deep over left side of neck, cutting all the muscles, vein and arteries, trachea and oesophagus (a tube through which food passes from mouth to stomach). (ii) Middle finger of right hand was completely chopped off and was missing. The Doctor issued Post Mortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage on account of injury no. (i) inflicted with sharp and hard cutting weapon. 4. After completion of the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against four persons, the appellant Mundrika Singh, Ram Swaroop Singh, Sarju Singh and one other and rest of the accused persons were not sent up for trial. Accordingly, cognizance of the offences was taken and when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, this appellant as well as Ram Swaroop Singh and Sarju Singh were put on trial. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses; of them PW1 Krishna Singh and PW2 Fauzdar Singh, are the witnesses to whom the informant Arun Kumar Singh (PW7) had informed about the occurrence. PW2 was informed while he was in the Court premises at Daltonganj, which was 7 k.m away from the place of occurrence. From there, they came to the School of PW1 Krishna Singh, a teacher, which was 10 k.m away from the place of occurrence and from there all the three persons came to the place of occurrence and then to the police station for lodging the case. PW3 Danga Manjhi, PW4 Tapan Singh, PW5 Kishun Singh, PW6 Harihar Singh, have been declared hostile. PW3 Danga Manjhi, PW4 Tapan Singh, PW5 Kishun Singh, PW6 Harihar Singh, have been declared hostile. PW7 is the informant Arun Kumar Singh, who has testified that he left home alongwith his father for keeping watch over his paddy field and when reached near the house of the appellant Mundrika Singh, he saw the appellant Mundrika Singh alongwith 20 persons coming out of his house, variously armed, and started chasing them. On seeing this, both, he as well as his father, ran away but in the way they surrounded his father and assaulted as a result of which he fell down and then the appellant chopped off his neck. Thereupon, they started searching him but as he had hided himself in the field of 'Rahar' they could not find him out and, thereafter, he fled away from there and came first to Fauzdar Singh (PW2) and then to Krishna Singh (PW1) and informed them about the occurrence and, thereafter, all the three came to the place of occurrence and then went to the police station where he lodged the case. PW9 has been tendered for crossexamination. 6. The defence also examined two witnesses, who have testified that when they, after knowing about the occurrence, came to the place of occurrence, they find the mother of the informant weeping and was telling that Arun has gone to his inlaws place and, hence, he be called immediately. 7. The trial Court, after taking into account the evidences brought on the records, did find that the FIR is the product of the consultation in between Pws1, 2, 7 and also a lawyer, still he believed the testimony of the informant PW7 but acquitted the other two accused persons namely Ram Swaroop Singh and Sarju Singh as they, according to the court, have no enmity with the deceased and as such they had no reason to commit the offence. At the same time, the Court did find the appellant guilty as there was enmity in between the father of the informant and the appellant. Accordingly, the Court while acquitting the aforesaid two persons, convicted the appellant and sentenced him vide impugned judgment, which is under challenge. 8. At the same time, the Court did find the appellant guilty as there was enmity in between the father of the informant and the appellant. Accordingly, the Court while acquitting the aforesaid two persons, convicted the appellant and sentenced him vide impugned judgment, which is under challenge. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the conduct of the informant is quite suspicious as he having seen the occurrence neither did raise any alarm after the accused persons left the place of occurrence nor did he inform any of the villagers nor to the police station, rather went to Daltonganj, which is 7 K.m away from the place of occurrence and then came to other place where PW1 Krishna Singh was the teacher and from there all the three came to the place of occurrence and then went to the police station to lodge the case which was against the normal conduct of the person, which does suggest that this witness had never seen the occurrence and, thereby, the trial court should have acquitted the appellant but since, the trial court has convicted the appellant, the order of conviction and sentence is fit to be set aside. 9. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that admittedly, there had been enmity in between the appellant and the deceased and, therefore, there was reason on the part of the appellant to commit the offence and while the appellant alongwith others committed murder of the deceased the informant had occasion to see the occurrence and, thereby, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. 10. While taking notice of the case of the prosecution as stated above, we find that the occurrence, as per the evidence of PW1 took place at 6.00 to 6.30 a.m on 13/10/1998 when the informant was going to field alongwith his father Fagu Singh (the deceased) to keep watch over the paddy field and when they reached near the house of the appellant, the appellant as well as 7 persons, named in the FIR and also 1011 unknown persons, variously armed, came out of the house of the appellant and they chased both of them and then succeeded in apprehending his father and then his father was assaulted as a result of which he fell down and then the appellant chopped off his neck. Meanwhile, the informant, as per the statement made in the fardbeyan (Ext2) fled from there and came to Daltonganj. The informant PW7, during course of his evidence developed his story by saying that while his father was being assaulted, he hided himself in the field of 'Rahar' from where he saw the occurrence, this vital aspect of the matter is missing from the fardbeyan. Further, the conduct of the informant is quite suspicious as he after seeing the occurrence, did not come to his village, which was only half a kilometer away from the place of occurrence and in between these two places, 5060 houses, as per the evidence of the informant PW7, were there whereas there are about 500 houses in the village of the informant. In spite of that he went to Daltonganj, where he met with PW2 Fauzdar Singh, a Taid working in the court and informed about the occurrence and then had a consultation with PW2 and also with a lawyer. Thereupon, they came to the School of PW1 Krishna Singh, which according to the evidence of PW1, was 10 kilometer away from Daltonganj Court and then informed to PW1, maternal uncle of his father, about the occurrence. Only then they came to the place of occurrence and from there they went to the police station and about 2.45 p.m the informant gave his fardbeyan. The conduct of the informant raises a grave suspicion as to whether he had actually seen the occurrence. The suspicion gets fortified from the fact that the Doctor did find only two injuries on the person of the deceased, whereas as per the evidence of the informant PW7, before the appellant chopped off the neck of his father, he was assaulted by 'Lathi', 'Gandasa' and 'Sword' and he had seen as many as 50 injuries on the persons of the deceased, which is never in consonance with the medical evidence and this inconsistency between oracular and medical evidence, coupled with the fact relating to the conduct, makes amply clear that the informant may not have seen the occurrence but when he found his father being murdered, he implicated the appellant with whom there was land dispute with the father of the informant. 11. Thus, we find that the evidence of the informant PW7 never inspire confidence to be believed. 11. Thus, we find that the evidence of the informant PW7 never inspire confidence to be believed. Accordingly, we do find that the trial court has committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant and, thereby, it is set aside. Consequently, the appellant Mundrika Singh, who is in jail custody, is acquitted of the charges and is directed to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case. Thus, this appeal stands allowed.