Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 799 (JHR)

Risa Munda v. State of Jharkhand

2015-07-13

PRAMATH PATNAIK, R.R.PRASAD

body2015
JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 05.04.2007 and order of sentence dated 07.04.2007 passed by the then learned Additional Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 409 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the court having found the appellant guilty for committing murder of Rameshwar Munda by causing fire arm injury, convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and further to undergo imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 27 of the Arms Act. 2. The case of the prosecution as has been made out in the fardbeyan is that on 18.10.2002 the deceased-Rameshwar Munda had gone to market alongwith his wife Phulmani Mundain-P.W.-5, two daughters Gangi Kumari-P.W.-6 and Sarswati Kumari-P.W.-3 as well as Lal Singh Munda-P.W.-2 and Jai Ram Munda-P.W.-7 for selling fire wood in hat. In the evening, while they were returning home and reached near the village Korba, this appellant all in a sudden came there and fired shot causing injury over the neck of the deceased, resulting into his instantaneous death. Thereupon, they brought the dead body and kept the dead body there for the whole night and on the next day they brought the dead body to Arki Police Station where S.I. Shivlal Tudu recorded the fardbeyan of the informant-Phulmani Mundain (P.W.-5). On the basis of which an F.I.R. was drawn. 3. Thereupon, the I.O. took up the investigation. During investigation, the I.O. held inquest on the dead body and prepared an inquest report. Thereupon, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by doctor Ram Lal Mehta-P.W.-9, who on holding autopsy did find following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound ½” in diameter with inverted margin and black colour around the wound on upper part of left side of neck direction being upwards and inwards. On exploration blood vessels and muscle were found ruptured. There was fracture of left mandible and laceration of buckle cavity up to oral office. This could have served as exit wound. The doctor-P.W.-9 issued post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, on account of aforesaid injuries being caused by fire arms. 4. There was fracture of left mandible and laceration of buckle cavity up to oral office. This could have served as exit wound. The doctor-P.W.-9 issued post-mortem examination report (Exhibit-2) with an opinion that death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, on account of aforesaid injuries being caused by fire arms. 4. 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. When the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial. 5. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether nine witnesses. Of them, P.W.-2-Lal Singh Munda, P.W.-3-Saraswati Kumari, P.W.-5-the informant (widow of the deceased), P.W.-6-Gangi Kumari, P.W.-7-Jai Ram Munda are the eye witnesses who have testified that in the afternoon of 18.10.2002 they had gone to market. While they were returning and reached at the place of occurrence i.e. village Korwa, the appellant came all on a sudden and fired shot causing injury over the neck, as a result of which he died at the spot. The dead body was brought home. On the next day, they took the dead body to police station where the case was lodged. P.W.-1-Sukhram Munda, P.W.-4-Sao Munda and P.W.-8-Gaur Singh Munda are the hearsay witnesses. 6. On closure of the prosecution case when the incriminating evidences appearing against the appellant were put the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he denied it. Thereupon, the court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses i.e. P.Ws.-2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 found the appellant guilty and, accordingly, recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge. 7. Mr. Amresh Kumar appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that whoever have claimed themselves to be the eye witnesses in the case are related to each other and thereby they can be said to be the interested witnesses whose testimony warrants to be scrutinized strictly. On strict scrutinization, one would find that P.W.-7-Jai Ram Munda and also P.W.-6-Gangi Kumari never happened to be the eye witnesses as they according to their evidence did come to know about the assailant from other persons and thereby their testimonies as eye witnesses be rejected. Further, it was submitted that I.O has also not been examined and as such place of occurrence could not be proved by the prosecution. Further, it was submitted that I.O has also not been examined and as such place of occurrence could not be proved by the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the court should have acquitted the appellant but instead of acquitting him the court has recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is fit to be set aside. 8. As against this, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that this is an open and shut case whereby it has been fully proved that it was the appellant who has committed murder of the deceased as all the witnesses P.W.-2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 had occasion to see the appellant committing murder as they were alongwith the deceased while they were returning home from market and that testimonies of the eye witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record, we do find that as per the case of the prosecution while the deceased was returning home alongwith his wife-Phulmani Mundain-P.W.-5, his two daughters Saraswati Kumari-P.W.-3 and Gangi Kumari-P.W.-6 as well as nephew Jai Ram Munda-P.W.-7 and Lal Singh Munda-P.W.-2 and reached at the place of occurrence where the appellant came all of a sudden and fired shot over the neck causing fire arm injury resulting into his death. Thereupon, the dead body was brought home by carrying it. On the next morning, the witnesses took the body to the police station where the informant-P.W.-5 gave her fardbeyan. 10. Thus, it appears that all the eye witnesses P.Ws.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 are related to each other. Even if, the witnesses are related to each other they cannot be branded as interested witnesses as nothing have been brought even to show that the witnesses would be benefited by false implication of the appellant. On the other hand witnesses appears o be natural as they had occasion to see the occurrence while they were returning home alongwith deceased. However, since the witnesses are relatives their testimonies are required to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. 11. On the other hand witnesses appears o be natural as they had occasion to see the occurrence while they were returning home alongwith deceased. However, since the witnesses are relatives their testimonies are required to be scrutinized carefully and cautiously. 11. On perusal of the testimony of P.W.-6, it appears that she has testified that while she was returning home alongwith deceased, the appellant all of a sudden came and fired shot. Thus, according to her version given in examination in chief she happens to be the eye witnesses. However, in course of her cross-examination, she did testify that she could know the name of the assailant from Jai Ram Munda-P.W.-7 and Lal Singh Munda-P.W.-2 and on account of this submissions have been advanced on behalf of the appellant that she never happens to be the eye witnesses but taking into account the testimony of the witness in totality not in exclusion we do find her to be the eye witness. Of course she has testified in her cross examination as has been highlighted but that may have occurred on account of the fact that she may not be knowing the name of the appellant. More or less, similar is the situation with respect to P.W.7-Jai Ram Munda who has also testified in the same manner as has been testified by the other witnesses. However, in cross examination he has testified that it was Gangi Kumari-P.W.-6 who told about the name of the assailant. Even if that statement is there this witness appears to be the eye witness as he was also alongwith the deceased and other witnesses. However, we do find from his testimony that he was ahead of them while they were returning home. This could be the reason that when shot was fired he may not have seen the appellant firing shot but he must have seen the appellant at the occurrence and when he would have reached near the other witness, P.W.-6 would have told him about the name of the appellant. 12. Further, we do find that the testimonies of all the eye witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence as doctor has found injury over the neck being caused by fire arm. 13. 12. Further, we do find that the testimonies of all the eye witnesses find corroboration from the medical evidence as doctor has found injury over the neck being caused by fire arm. 13. Thus, we do find that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing murder of the deceased and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, is hereby affirmed. 14. In the result, this appeal is hereby dismissed.