Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 49 (JHR)

Krishna Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2015-01-12

R.R.PRASAD, RAVI NATH VERMA

body2015
Judgment This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated on 24th February 2004 and 25th February 2004, respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.III, Gumla in Sessions Trial No. 116 of 2000, whereby and whereunder the Court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Mangri Devi, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for life. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Mangri Devi had gone to a field to keep watch over 'Mahua' alongwith her two daughters Urmila Kumari (PW1) and Lila Kumari (PW2). While the deceased was sitting under a tree and her both the daughters were playing some yards away from that tree, the appellant Krishna Singh came there armed with Tangi and assaulted the deceased causing injuries resulting into her death. Both the daughters, after seeing this came down to their house where she informed to their father Budhuwa Singh, the informant (PW8), when he returned home from Kamdara. On knowing this, the informant (PW8) alongwith her two daughters accompanied with Arjun Singh (PW4), Somra Singh (PW5) and others came to the place of occurrence where they did find the dead body lying on the ground. The matter was informed to the Chaukidar, who, in turn, informed to Janki Ram (PW9), SubInspector of Police of Kamdar Police Station, who recorded the said information in the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence, where he did find the dead body. There he recorded the fardbeyan of the informant PW8. Upon which, FIR (Ext.1) was drawn and the case was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. He took up the matter for investigation. During investigation, he held inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared the inquest report (Ext. 6). He also seized earth smeared with blood under seizure list (Ext. 7). Thereupon, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar (PW7). The Doctor after holding autopsy, did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Lacerated injury 4”x1”x 2 1/2” on left temporal reagion of head with fracture of under lying temporal bone. Brain matter was found lacerated. 7). Thereupon, he sent the dead body for Post Mortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Hemant Kumar (PW7). The Doctor after holding autopsy, did find the following injuries on the person of the deceased: (i) Lacerated injury 4”x1”x 2 1/2” on left temporal reagion of head with fracture of under lying temporal bone. Brain matter was found lacerated. (ii) Lacerated injury 1” x 1/2” x 1/2” on left side of the face. (iii) Lacerated injury 1” x 1/2” x 3/4” on left mandibular region with fracture of mandibul bone. According to the Doctor, all the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance and were sufficient to cause death. With such opinion, he issued the Post Mortem report (Ext.3). 3. On completion of the investigation, the police submitted charge sheet. Upon which, cognizance of the offence was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the appellant was put on trial. 4. The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined altogether 9 witnesses, of them PW1 Urmila Kumari and PW2 Lila Kumari are the eyewitnesses, whereas the informant has been examined as PW8. 5. The Court having found the eyewitnesses PW1 & PW2 to be trustworthy, recorded the order of conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 6. Being aggrieved with that, this appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant. 7. Mr. Lakhan Sharma, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curriae, submits that the Court should not have relied upon the testimonies of PW. 1 as she, as per her evidence as elicited in the cross-examination, may not be eyewitness as she has stated that she did not see the accused running away from the place of occurrence. Under the circumstances, the Court seems to have committed wrong in convicting the appellant. 8. As against this, Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of the eyewitnesses PWs. 1 & 2, the daughters of the deceased, aged about 7 years and 4 years, who had gone to field alongwith their mother the deceased and saw the appellant, who happened to be their uncle, assaulting the deceased with Tangi. The testimones of both the eyewitnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence and, hence, the Court never committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 9. The testimones of both the eyewitnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence and, hence, the Court never committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence. 9. Having heard counsel appearing for the appellant and the State and on perusal of the records, we do find that nothing is there in the cross-examination to discard the testimonies either of PW1 or PW2, who have deposed that while they were there in the field, their mother was sitting under a tree, whereas they were playing slightly far away from that tree. There the appellant came armed with Tangi and assaulted the deceased with Tangi. According to PW1, the appellant gave three Tangi blows on the person of the deceased, as a result of which her mother died. The testimonies of both the witnesses, particularly PW1, gets corroboration from the medical evidence as the Doctor has found as many as three injuries on the person of the deceased caused by hard and blunt substance. Further, we do find that after seeing the occurrence, both the witnesses PWs1 & 2 came back to their home where they informed to their father when he returned back home from Kamdara. Immediately, thereupon the informant PW8 and other witnesses PWs4 & 5 came to the place of occurrence where they found the dead body of the deceased. 10. It is true that PW1 had deposed in her cross-examination that she did not see the accused person running away from the place of occurrence and did not find him at the place of occurrence, but it never suggests that PW1 had never seen the appellant assaulting her mother. It has come in the evidence of PW1 that she was away from her mother. Obviously by the time PWs1 & 2 came near to their mother after seeing the occurrence, the appellant would have fled away from there and, therefore, it never appears to be unnatural on the part of PW1 to say that when she came alongwith her sister PW2 before their mother, they did not find the accused over there. 11. Thus, we do not find anything in the evidences of the eyewitnesses to discard their testimonies. Accordingly, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and, hence, it needs no interference. 12. 11. Thus, we do not find anything in the evidences of the eyewitnesses to discard their testimonies. Accordingly, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant and, hence, it needs no interference. 12. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the trial court, is hereby confirmed. Consequently, having found no merit, this appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.