Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 247 (JHR)

Dobaro Sinku v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-03

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Ratnaker Bhengra, J. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.3.2006 and 20.3.2006 respectively passed in Sessions Trial Case no. 181 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case no. 135 of 2004, Gua P.S. Case no.14 of 2004 whereby the sole appellant is convicted u/s 302 IPC for committing murder with sentence of life imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC and one year for offence u/s 436 IPC. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case as per the fard-bayan is that on 19.3.2004 at 4 p.m. informant Dosama Guiya was standing before her house. At the same time accused Dobaro Sinku came along with bow and arrows and chased Salai Sinku for shooting him with arrows but he fled away. After that accused set on fire house of Salai Sinku. When Mangta Sinku and other villagers came to extinguish the fire, accused chased them with his bow and arrows and shoot arrow on Mangta Sinku. Arrow struck Mangta Sinku on his thigh, due to which he became injured. After that at 8 p.m. accused again came to house of informant. At that time informant and her mother in law were in house. Accused asked the mother in law of the informant to bring before him, her daughter in law. Informant due to fear shut the door. Then accused shoot her mother in law with arrow. Arrow struck her stomach, due to which she fell down and became unconscious and died after some time. On information of this occurrence, police came to village on 20.3.2004, informant gave her statement before police regarding the occurrence at 12:15 hrs. 3. On the basis of the statement of the informant this case was registered as Gua P.S. Case no. 14 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 135 of 2004 and after investigation of the case police filed charge sheet against the accused for committing offence punishable u/s 302, 307 and 436 IPC. The learned CJM took cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet. Case was solely triable by the court of Sessions hence, it was committed to the court of sessions. 135 of 2004 and after investigation of the case police filed charge sheet against the accused for committing offence punishable u/s 302, 307 and 436 IPC. The learned CJM took cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet. Case was solely triable by the court of Sessions hence, it was committed to the court of sessions. Charges u/s 302, 307 and 436 IPC were framed against the accused Dobaro Sinku and read over and explained to him in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused was accordingly tried in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum. At the conclusion of trial he was convicted of the offences under sections, 302, 307, 436 IPC and sentenced as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal. 4. PW-6, Dosama Guiya is the informant in this case. She has supported her fard-bayan in her evidence. She has stated in her evidence that the incident occurred in summer. The accused Dobaro Sinku came to the house with bow and arrows and a sword. She has stated that he shot an arrow at her mother-in-law (fufi-saas) which got lodged in the abdomen of her mother-in-law, Chando Guiya (Kui). She also said that before this, he had also shot an arrow at Mangta Sinku and it had also got stuck in his thigh after this he set on fire the house of Salai Sinku. 5. She had given the information regarding the incident to the thana. The Darogaji had come to the village she told them everything, which they wrote down and read out to her and she put her thumb impression on the paper. Her co-villager Phulmani explained what was written in the Ho language and she informed the Darogaji in Hindi. In Court, this witness has recognized the accused Dobara and pointed him out in the court. In her cross-examination she has said that Phulmani is not literate. That the darogaji had written down all that she has said in court today. She has also said that it is not so that she had not told the darogaji that Dobaro had come with a bow and arrows. It is not so that I had not told the police that Dobaro had burnt the straw of my uncle Salai's house after putting the straw down from the house. She has also said that it is not so that she had not told the darogaji that Dobaro had come with a bow and arrows. It is not so that I had not told the police that Dobaro had burnt the straw of my uncle Salai's house after putting the straw down from the house. That time she was in the house when he shot an arrow at her aunt, that time they had gone to attend to natures call, prior to that they were in their house. She has also said that Salai's house was made of tiles and the part that was burnt was part of the kitchen. Because of burning the tiles etc. had fallen down. She has also said that it is not so that she had not seen Dobaro shooting arrow at her aunty. 6. PW-4 is Mangta Sinku. He is one of the victims who was shot at by Dobora Sinku. He has stated in his evidence that the incidence is of about one year ago. He was sitting at the door of his house, when the accused came and asked him, why are you sitting and shot at him. The arrow hit him in his left thigh. PW-4 indicates the wound on his thigh. He fell down after being hit by the arrow and Dobaro Sinku went away. After this Dobaro went towards the village and later on he heard that Dobaro had shot arrow at Chando Kui and murdered her. Then he heard he went to Salai's house and burnt it. Today, the accused is in Court and he recognized him. In his cross-examination he has said that his wife Balma Kui told him about the murder of Chando Kui by arrow and the burning of the house of Salai Kui. His house is at a distance that is a little less than from the court to the bus stand. 7. PW-4 has also said that Dobaro was not talking like a mad man. He does not know why he shot at him. He gave his complaint to the police and they had even taken him to the hospital. He says he did not tell the Darogaji that he was sitting at the door, and the accused asked him why and shot at him, because he was not asked by the police. He does not know why he shot at him. He gave his complaint to the police and they had even taken him to the hospital. He says he did not tell the Darogaji that he was sitting at the door, and the accused asked him why and shot at him, because he was not asked by the police. He has also denied that he was hit or injured by his plough. 8. PW-3 is Salai Sinku, he has deposed that the incident is of about a year ago and at that time he was in his courtyard. At that time Dobaro Sinku came with bow and arrow. That they had come face to face and Dobaro had shot the arrow, but he sat down, hence the arrow missed him. Then he had run away, and therefore, Dobaro burnt his house that later on he came to know that Dobaro had shot arrow at Mangta Sinku and injured Mangta, and murdered Chando Kui. He has recognized the accused in the dock of the Court. In his cross he has said that the incident is of in between the Maghe festival. Dobaro is not a mad man he is a good man. That he has no enmity with Dobaro. He has further said that Dobaro came to his house and said that he wants to fight him, and saying so, put down the iron baggi, and lifted his bow and arrow and chased him around the house and shot the arrow. When he shot the arrow he sat down and then ran towards the jungle. He remained in the jungle for two days. He has said that he did not inform the village Munda of the incident. 9. PW-1 is Doctor Balkrishna Sahni. He has stated in paragraph 2.1, 3.5 and 10 about the arrow, and has also stated that it had entered the stomach. He has stated that Chando Kui died due to hemorrhage and shock caused due to injuries. Thus, he has supported the prosecution case as narrated by them with regard to the weapon used and injury caused. 10. PW-5 Akshay Kumar Ram is the I.O. of the case. He said he was posted at Gua Thana at the time of the incident and on 20.3.2004 he received information that in village Dumarjoda a woman has been murdered with an arrow shot. 10. PW-5 Akshay Kumar Ram is the I.O. of the case. He said he was posted at Gua Thana at the time of the incident and on 20.3.2004 he received information that in village Dumarjoda a woman has been murdered with an arrow shot. He has then stated facts relating to the recording of fard-bayan (Ext.3) of the informant and institution and investigation of the case. He has proved the formal FIR (Ext.4) and injury report (Ext. 5). He has also stated in his evidence that he sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Further, he stated that he issued requisition for the examination of injured Mangta Sinku. This witness was also cross-examined but has said nothing adverse to the prosecution story or anything really detrimental to demolish the case of the prosecution. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that one of the persons Mangta Sinku was shot in the thigh, which is not a vital part of the body, and he survived, so he cannot be held guilty, for offence under section 302 IPC. Also, he says Mangta Sinku is a hearsay witness, since he only seems to have heard about the murder of Chando Kui and the burning of the house of another person. So his testimony is unreliable and should not be believed. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has also said there is no motive on the part of the deceased to kill any one, so why would he go around shooting persons or burning house. That in fact one of the witnesses, PW-3 Salai Sinku, whose house was in fact burnt says he is a good person in his deposition. So if PW-3, a victim can say he is a good person, it is unbelievable that he will be responsible for the offences he is accused of. 13. Learned A.P.P. on the other hand has submitted that it is an open and shut case. There are three witnesses to the incidents or one of the incidents, that happened sequentially. The doctor's report also indicates to the accused and his manner of harming people and all the witnesses are against him. 14. After going through the records, documents and noting the facts and circumstances of the case, the following observations can made. This case is rather simple in nature. The doctor's report also indicates to the accused and his manner of harming people and all the witnesses are against him. 14. After going through the records, documents and noting the facts and circumstances of the case, the following observations can made. This case is rather simple in nature. That it does not have any complicated motives and even the act is rather straight forward and not disputed. One Dobaro Sinku went around shooting persons with arrows in his village, as a result of which one person died, another was injured and another persons house was partially burnt. There are three eye witnesses, two of whom are victim of either injury to body or property, who support the case of the prosecution. The Doctor, who has done postmortem examination has also established the role of the arrow in the death of Chando Kui, hence, corroboration of the murder as narrated in the fardbayan and also by the evidences. The I.O. in his investigation has been led to conclude the case against the accused, and he has taken the fardbayan and restatement of the informant. He has proved the fard-bayan or Ext.3, the formal FIR (Ext.4) and the Inquest report (Ext.5) which in his handwriting and bears his signature. He had also seized the arrow sent by the doctor who conducted the post mortem. So most of the facts and evidence clearly point to establish the guilt of the accused. 15. Regarding the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, Mangta Sinku, may be hearsay witness, for the other incidents in the chain of events. However, he himself was shot at and he has shown his injury to the court during his deposition. Moreover, what he had heard about the other incidents turned out to be true so it seems there was truth in what he heard. 16. Regarding the issue of motive, it has been well established that when there is direct allegation supported by eye witnesses, then there is no need for motive to be established. Finally one point that was not raised here at this stage, but was referred to at the Sessions Court stage was the issue of insanity. The accused has not pleaded it through counsel, and even so, he has not asserted it any where else. Finally one point that was not raised here at this stage, but was referred to at the Sessions Court stage was the issue of insanity. The accused has not pleaded it through counsel, and even so, he has not asserted it any where else. No medical evidence to that effect has also been included in the records so this ground cannot be allowed. The learned Trial Court has some what gone into this fact and rejected it. 17. So on the aforementioned reason and facts and circumstances this Court upholds the guilt of the accused Dobaro Sinku U/s 302 IPC for the murder of Chando Sinku (Kui) and the sentence of life imprisonment with R.I. is sustained. Thus, conviction for attempt to murder U/s 307 IPC is also upheld, and the sentence of R.I. of three years sustained. Finally his conviction for the offence u/s 436 IPC is also upheld, along with the sentence of one year. All the sentences are to run concurrently. 18. Accordingly, the Appeal is dismissed.