Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 222 (JHR)

Bogan Sardar v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-28

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : By Court: This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28th June, 2005 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Saraikella-Kharsawan in connection with Sessions Trial no.101 of 2004, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 302 and 448 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.500/-and in default of making payment of fine, he shall suffer further simple imprisonment for two months and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution, as it appears from the written report lodged by Pintu Sardar, in brief, is that on 11.06.2004 at about 10 P.M. he woke up after hearing alarm raised by Lengra Sardar (deceased) and reached to the place and found appellant scuffling with deceased Lengra Sardar. He had seen Bogan Sardar (appellant) inflicting knife blows on the person of Lengra Sardar. In the meantime, Dulu Sardar, Jugal Sardar, Ghanshyam Sardar and some more villagers reached to the place and they overpowered the appellant. The injured Lengra Sardar was removed to hospital for his treatment whereas appellant-Bogan Sardar along with knife was produced before the police and on the basis of written report, Saraikella-Rajnagar P.S. Case no. 22 of 2004 dated 12.06.4 under sections 448, 324, 326 and 307 I.P.C. was registered. On the following morning, Lengra Sardar succumbed to his injury whereafter section 302 I.P.C. has been added. The police, after due investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial no. 101 of 2004. 3. Charges under sections 302 and 448 I.P.C. against Bogan Sardar were framed to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges has examined altogether nine witnesses including informant, Investigating Officer and the doctor. Learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents, held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 and 448 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges has examined altogether nine witnesses including informant, Investigating Officer and the doctor. Learned Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial placing reliance on the evidence and documents, held the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 and 448 I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence on the ground that P.W.1 happens to be the wife of the deceased but the story narrated by her does not find support from the F.I.R. The place of occurrence as disclosed by P.W.1 is also contradictory. The Investigating Officer did not seize any blood stain from the place of occurrence and therefore, it could be said that actual place of occurrence has not been proved by the prosecution. It reveals from the statement of P.W.9-Investigating Officer and some of the eye witnesses that appellant was also having injury on his person and that has not been explained by the prosecution witnesses. The evidence available on record indicates that the appellant is handicapped and he is not having his left hand, which is imputed above the elbow. Since the appellant is handicapped, the manner of occurrence as described by the eye witnesses could not be relied upon. The knife, which was seized, has not been produced as evidence before the court. The occurrence took place during night at about 10 P.M. and, therefore, assemblage of all the eye witnesses at one point of time to witness the occurrence appears doubtful. So-called eye witnesses P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 and 7 have given almost stereo type statement, which could not be possible. 5. Learned Addl. P.P. has opposed the contention and submitted that prosecution case is fully intact and all material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. The informant-Pintu Sardar has been examined as P.W.3 and he has proved the written report. P.W.1, who happens to be the wife of the deceased, has corroborated the F.I.R. Likewise P.Ws. 2 & 3 have also corroborated the same fact, which they have witnessed and hence there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the evidences and documents available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. 2 & 3 have also corroborated the same fact, which they have witnessed and hence there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. We have considered the evidences and documents available on record and also perused the impugned judgment. The story, which comes up from the evidence available is that the deceased was sleeping in the Veranda of his house and at about 10 P.M., the appellant appeared and scuffled with him, deceased raised alarm, which attracted his wife and nearby people who had assembled at the place of occurrence, in the meantime, the appellant inflicted knife blow on the abdomen and chest of the deceased, somehow the informant with the help of P.Ws. 2 & 7 overpowered the appellant, the knife from his possession was taken and he was produced before the police with the knife whereas the injured-Lengra Sardar was removed to hospital for his treatment, but in the morning, he died. The story reproduced above finds support from the evidence of P.W.1-Bansuri Sardarin (wife of deceased), P.W.2-Dulu Ram Sardar, P.W.3-Pintu Sardar (informant), P.W.7-Ratni Sardar (wife of the informant) All these witnesses have categorically stated that after hearing hullah, they rushed towards the house of deceased. When they reached over there, they had seen the appellant scuffling with the deceased. In the meantime, the appellant started inflicting blows by means of knife to the deceased on his abdomen and chest. The injury caused to the deceased finds support from the post mortem report proved by P.W.6-Dr.-Pranab Kumar. The witnesses have also proved the seizure list, inquest report. P.W.4-Jugal Sardar and P.W.5-Ghanshyam Sardar are the witnesses, who reached to the place of occurrence after assault was over, but the deceased was lying on the ground having injury on his person. Since the deceased was alive, he was removed to hospital for his treatment, but he could not survive. The factum of occurrence has been disclosed by P.Ws.4 & 5. The Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9 and he has supported the investigation done by him. So far as injury appearing on the person of appellant is concerned, he was having simple injury and for that treatment was provided to him. The statement of witnesses is clear that scuffle between the appellant and deceased was going on and in course of that, the appellant might have sustained injury. So far as injury appearing on the person of appellant is concerned, he was having simple injury and for that treatment was provided to him. The statement of witnesses is clear that scuffle between the appellant and deceased was going on and in course of that, the appellant might have sustained injury. From the scenario brought on record, we do not consider that the minor injury caused to appellant, if not explained, is fatal to the prosecution. After perusing the evidence on record, we find no room for the defence because nothing material has come out from the witnesses during their cross-examination and the prosecution evidence stands fully intact. 7. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.