Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 413 (JHR)

Chumbru Doraiburu v. State of Jharkhand

2015-03-25

R.N.VERMA, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT 1. By Court, - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 20.03.2004 and order of sentence dated 24.03.2004 passed by the then learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa ih Sessions Trial No. 87 of 2003 whereby and where under the Court having found the appellants guilty for committing murder of Rangia Doraiburu convicted them for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that in the night of 22.12.2002 the informant Raghunath Doraiburu (PW I) while was sleeping in his house along with his wife Chundri Doraiburu (PW 2) and children, woke up after hearing noise coming from the courtyard and came to courtyard, where he saw these two appellants assaulting Rangia Doniiburu, who after being assaulted was pushed inside a room where both of them also threw the bhujaii and knife. After some time, when the accused persons fled away, he came to that room and found the Rangia Doraiburu dead. On the next morning, i.e. 23.12.2002 at about 7.00 a.m., both the appellants again came and asked as to whether- Rangia Doraiburu has died or is still alive. They entered into the room and when found Rangia Doraiburu dead, they went away. On 23.12.2002 Bharat Dasabya, Dakua of village, informed the Officer-in Charge of Tonto police station at about 10.30 a.m. about killing of Rangia Doraiburu upon which he made Sanha entry and then proceeded for village Barakuchia where at about 11.30 a.m. recorded the fardbeyan of Raghunath Doraiburu PW 1. On the basis of which a formal F.I.R. (Ext.7) was drawn thereupon he himself took up the investigation of the case during which he held inquest on the dead body of Raghunath Doraiburu and prepared an inquest report.. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh (PW 7). On holding autopsy on the dead body, he found following injuries : External Injury : (i) Incised wound five in numbers on scalp 2" X 3/4" X bone deep. (ii) Wound over left scapula 2" X 3" X bone deep. (iii) Abrasion black colour over back 8" X3". On dissection skull bone was found fractured. Brain tissues were lacerated and spleen was found divided in two halves and were lacerated. (ii) Wound over left scapula 2" X 3" X bone deep. (iii) Abrasion black colour over back 8" X3". On dissection skull bone was found fractured. Brain tissues were lacerated and spleen was found divided in two halves and were lacerated. Further, 8th, 9th and 10th ribs were found fractured. The doctor issued post-mortem examination report (Ext.3) with an opinion that death was caused on account of aforesaid injuries caused by sharp cutting instruments like bhujali and knife. 3. Meanwhile, the I.O. (PW 8) also seized knife and bhujali under seizure list (Ext.6) from the room where the dead body was lying. At the same time the I.O. also seized earth smeared with blood. After completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet upon which cognizance of the offence was taken. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellants were put on trial during which prosecution examined eight witnesses. Of them, PW 3-Bharat Dasbeya, PW 4 Sulubh Doraiburu are the witnesses to the seizure. PW 3 and also PW 5 are the witnesses to the inquest. PW 6 is a heresay witness who derived knowledge about the •occurrence from PW 1. PW 1 Raghunath Doraiburu is the informant, who testified in the same manner as he had made statement in his fardbeyan. PW 2 the wife of PW 1 also testified that it were the appellants who killed the deceased. After closure of the prosecution case, when the incriminating material appearing against the appellants was put to them under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the appellants denied it. Thereupon the Court having placed its reliance on the testimony of PW 1 as well as PW 2 getting corroboration from the medical evidence did record the order of conviction and sentence against the appellants, which is under challenge. 4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the informant happens to be the uncle who has falsely implicated these two appellants to grab the property of the appellant by concocting a case that the appellant brought the deceased by assaulting to the house of PW 1 which story appears to be improbable as nobody would be taking the deceased to the house of his own relative to make him a witness. Further, it was submitted that if the appellants were to kill the deceased, he would have killed him and threw the dead body anywhere in the village in the night. In the circumstances the case as made out by PW 1 certainly appears to be a concocted case but the trial Court did not consider all these aspects of the matt or and recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is fit to be set aside. 5. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been no reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 who happen to be uncle and aunt with whom these appellants do not have enmity and that the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2 get corroboration not only from the medical evidence but also from the objective finding of the I.O. and thereby the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence never Warrants to be interfered with. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the record, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been disclosed by PW 1, the uncle of the appellant, that while he was sleeping in the house along with his wife, he as well as his wife Chundri Doraiburu (PW 2) woke up on hearing cries of the deceased. On hearing cries, when PW 1 and PW 2 came out of the room they found both the appellants assaulting the deceased and pushing him inside the room and then threw the knife and bhujali which they were holding in that mom. PW 1 the informant in his examination-in-chief did testify the same but in the cross-examination he did depose that he did not see the person, who had assaulted the deceased neither did he see t he deceased Rangia Doraibum in his courtyard. However, he did depose that in the morning. he found the dead body of Rangia Doraiburu in the courtyard. In the midst of the cross-examination certain questions were put by the Court to clarify the things. In response to that the witness did depose that it is the fact that appellant brought Rangia Doraiburu by assaulting to his house and pushed inside the room in which room the appellant also threw bhujali and knife. In the midst of the cross-examination certain questions were put by the Court to clarify the things. In response to that the witness did depose that it is the fact that appellant brought Rangia Doraiburu by assaulting to his house and pushed inside the room in which room the appellant also threw bhujali and knife. He did clarify that whatever he stated in the cross-examination, he had stated without understanding the question. Thus, we find that whatever PW 1 did testify in his examination-In-chief that finds corroboration from his earlier statement as recorded in the fardbeyan. Further, we do find that whatever PW 1 did answers to the questions put to him in cross-examination, he answered without understanding the question which he clarified to the Court when question was put by the Court and thereby whatever has come in the cross-examination that docs not make PW 1 untrustworthy. Going further in the matter, we do find that PW 2. the wife of PW 1. has corroborated the testimony of PW 1 wherein she has testified that when she woke up she found the appellant assaulting the deceased and then pushed the deceased in one of the rooms and then went away. Thereupon, when she came, she found the dead body of Rangia Doraiburu over there. This witness in her cross-examination has also said that she did not see the appellant assaulting the deceased as she was sleeping but that piece of evidence must be related to the acts of appellant prior to the deceased being taken to the courtyard of the PW 2 and thereby it does not impair the testimony of PW 2 as testified in the examination-in-chief. 7. Thus; we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2. The testimonies of these two witnesses further get corroboration from the objective findings of the La. who did find the dead body in the same room and that apart the weapons used were also found in the room which were seized. 7. Thus; we do not find any reason to disbelieve the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2. The testimonies of these two witnesses further get corroboration from the objective findings of the La. who did find the dead body in the same room and that apart the weapons used were also found in the room which were seized. So far as the submission advanced on behalf of the appellants that the appellants have been falsely implicated by PW 1 and PW 2 to grab the property of the appellants but we do not find any substance in this submission keeping in view the testimony of PW I where he has said that these two appellants have one more brother namely Gonia. In such situation, we fail to understand as to how the property would come to PW 1 if the appellants arc convicted. 8. Under the circumstances, 'We do find that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence, the trial Court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellants. Accordingly, judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby affirmed. 9. In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.