Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 393 (JHR)

Ramlal Murmu v. State of Jharkhand

2016-02-29

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : RATNAKER BHENGRA, J. This Criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.2.2008 and 25.2.2008 respectively passed by the learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. III Godda in Sessions Trial. No.125 of 2000/116 of 2007 arising out of Boarijor P.S. Case No. 55 of 2000 corresponding to G.R Case No. 679 of 2000 whereby the above named appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. 2. The case of the prosecution as it appears from the Fardbeyan of the deceased Maidas Murmu son of Singhrai Murmu of village Bara Sripur recorded by Sub-Inspector Ragunandan Jha on 4.7.2000 at 8.30 a.m in the Referral Hospital at Boarijor is that on 3.7.2000 he had gone to the house of Munsi Tudu for participating in the feast on the occasion of marriage ceremony of his son and when he was returning to his house and was in his way and near the river, at around 8 p.m. the accused Ramlal Murmu, who was hiding there from before, assaulted the informant with a knife and gave injury near his naval and thereafter fled away. Thereafter the informant raised alarm and his brothers Munsi Murmu and Guru Murmu and villagers Sukhu Tudu and Talo Soren came to the place of occurrence and the informant later (deceased) was brought to his house on a cot. In the next morning the informant(deceased) was brought to Boarijora P.S and his fardbeyan was recorded. He disclosed that reason for the incident is that there is a land related dispute going on in court and for this reason last Monday, at around 8 P.M with intention to kill, the accused assaulted him with a knife on his stomach and injured badly. 3. On the basis of the Fardbeyan of Maidas Murmu (deceased) Boarijor P.S.Case No. 55 of 2000 was registered on 4.7.2000 under sections 342 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused Ramlal Murmu and accordingly, formal FIR was drawn up, investigation commenced. However, informant Maidas Murmu died in course of his treatment on 5.7.2000 and as such section 302 of IPC was added in the FIR. Investigation of the case was done and charge sheet was submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. However, informant Maidas Murmu died in course of his treatment on 5.7.2000 and as such section 302 of IPC was added in the FIR. Investigation of the case was done and charge sheet was submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused person. Cognizance of the offence against the accused person on the basis of the charge-sheet, case diary and other materials available on record was taken under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was committed to the court sessions on 18.12.2000 and registered as S.T. No. 125 of 2000/116 of 2007.Charge was framed against the accused Ramlal Murmu under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned Sessions Judge, Godda, but the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined altogether 8 witnesses. 4. The learned Sessions Judge, on conclusion of trial, convicted the accused person for the offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Hence this appeal. 5. PW 1, Sukhu Tudu has stated in his deposition that the alleged incident is of two years ago around 8 O'Clock in the night. At that time he was in his house. On hearing hulla he came out from his house and saw that Maidas Murmu was lying on the ground in injured condition. There was an injury in his navel just below the belly. He was alive. He has also deposed to the effect that the deceased disclosed before him that he was stabbed by the accused Ramlal Murmu and thereafter the deceased was taken to Boarijor police station from where he was sent to Boarijor hospital and after some treatment he was again referred to Sadar hospital, Godda for his better treatment and he did not go to Godda Hospital. In course of treatment he died. He further deposed that he had recognized the accused in court. In his cross examination he deposed that there was a land dispute in between them and to that effect litigation was going on. In course of treatment he died. He further deposed that he had recognized the accused in court. In his cross examination he deposed that there was a land dispute in between them and to that effect litigation was going on. In para-3 of deposition, this witness has clearly stated that Chowkidhar Lakhiram Mirdha had come in the night but he had stated that it was not possible to carry the injured to the police station as it was night and thereafter the deceased was brought to the police in the following morning of the incident. He has also stated that he had seen the injury of the deceased at the house of Munsi Tudu. He was assaulted by knife and there was an injury in his navel 6. PW 2 Hakim Kisku has stated that the alleged incident is of two years ago. He deposed that in the following morning of 3.7.2000 Munsi Murmu, who is the younger brother of the deceased, had come to his house and disclosed before him that his brother Maidas Murmu has been stabbed and then he went to the house of Munsi Tudu and saw the injured Maidas Murmu who was stabbed in his navel. He also deposed that the injury was tied with a thin towel (Gamchha) and the towel was stained with blood. He also deposed that deceased Maidas Murmu told him that he was stabbed with a knife by the accused Ramlal Murmu and thereafter with the assistance of Munsi Murmu, Talo Soren and others injured was brought to Boarijor P.S on a cot from where he was sent to the hospital for his treatment and thereafter injured was referred to Sadar Hospital Godda for his better treatment and in course of his treatment he died on 5.7.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. This witness has stated that he recognized the accused in court. In cross examination he stated that he had gone to the house of Munsi Murmu and Munsi Murmu had come to his house on the next day in the morning. Lakhiram Mirdha, Chowkidhar had informed Munsi Murmu that Maidas Murmu had been assaulted with knife near the river which distance is about one and half kilometer away from Munsi's house. He was informed about the incident by Maidas. The Hospital at Boarijor is at a little distance. Doctor had seen the injury but he had not treated it. Lakhiram Mirdha, Chowkidhar had informed Munsi Murmu that Maidas Murmu had been assaulted with knife near the river which distance is about one and half kilometer away from Munsi's house. He was informed about the incident by Maidas. The Hospital at Boarijor is at a little distance. Doctor had seen the injury but he had not treated it. Till then Maidas Murmu was able to speak. On the date of incident Maidas Murmu had gone to the house of Munsi Tudu to eat feast. He also stated that there was a land case going on between Maidas Murmu and accused. 7. PW 3 Munsi Murmu has stated that the alleged incident is of three years ago and at that time he was in his house. Chowkidar had come before him and said let us go, some one has assaulted your brother with knife. He went to the house of Munsi Tudu and there saw his brother Maidas Murmu in an injured condition and there was injury in his stomach. On asking him, he informed that Ramlal Murmu had stabbed him with a knife and injured him and thereafter he brought his brother to his house. On the next day he and his brother went to the police station from there police sent his brother to Boarijor hospital where he was treated. The police wrote the fardbeyan of his brother in the hospital itself. The police had not explained the contents of the fardbeyan to his brother. My brother's thumb print was taken on the fardbeyan. My brother was referred to Sadar hospital for better treatment. He has stated that his brother died in the Sadar Hospital itself in course of treatment. He recognized the accused, who was present in court. In his cross examination he has stated that he has not put his thumb impression on the fardbeyan. He has further stated that he and his brother Maidas Murmu did not have any invitation from Munsi Tudu.The house of Munsi Tudu is about half kilometer away from his house at Gogmanjitola. We brothers live separately. Maidas Murmu had gone to the house of Munsi Tudu at 12 noon. He had gone to feast. He had seen his brother going to the house of Munsi Tudu with one Jugal Kisu. Chowkidhar Lakhi Ram had come to his house at 8 O'Clock in the night to call him. We brothers live separately. Maidas Murmu had gone to the house of Munsi Tudu at 12 noon. He had gone to feast. He had seen his brother going to the house of Munsi Tudu with one Jugal Kisu. Chowkidhar Lakhi Ram had come to his house at 8 O'Clock in the night to call him. When he had gone to the house of Munsi Tudu, then his brother was conscious but he could not walk. He has also stated that Munsi Tudu, Ramlal Murmu and they are agnates and have been fighting a litigation in relation to land for seven years with Ram Lal Murmu. He has deposed that he does not know the fate of the litigation. 8. PW 5 Betka Hembram has deposed that Ram Lal Murmu assaulted Maidas Murmu with knife on his belly. On being informed by Munsi Murmu he had gone to Boarijor police station but he was not available then he had to go to Sadar Hospital and there he met with him. He was able to converse with him. P.W5 said that Maidas Murmu informed him that Ramlal Murmu had assaulted him. He further said that younger brother, Guru Murmu of the deceased had also affixed his thumb impression on the inquest report. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which is exhibited as Ext.2. 9. PW 6 Guru Murmu has stated that the incident is of about five years ago, around at 8 P.M and that time he was in his house and just then Lakhi Ram Mirdha, Chowkidhar, came and informed that his elder brother Maidas Murmu has been stabbed with knife by Ram Lal Murmu. Immediately he went to place of incident which was on the road and saw that his brother was lying in an injured state. He had injury on his stomach from which blood was flowing. When he asked his injured brother then he told that Ram Lal Murmu had stabbed him with his knife on the road. Subsequently, he put him on a cot and took him to Boarijor police station and in the police station his brother gave his fardbeyan which Darogaji recorded and on which he (deceased brother) also gave his thumb impression. After this the police sent him to Doctor at Boarijor where he was treated. Doctor seeing seriousness of the wound referred him to Sadar Hospital, Godda. After this the police sent him to Doctor at Boarijor where he was treated. Doctor seeing seriousness of the wound referred him to Sadar Hospital, Godda. However, on the next day in course of treatment his brother died. He said that he had recognized the accused in the court. 10. PW 4 Dr. Satyendra Mishra has given his opinion that the wound was caused by sharp pointed weapon. He has also stated that cause of death was severe haemorrhage and shock resulting from perforating injury of abdomen caused by a sharp pointed weapon. 11. Rajesh Kumar, P.W.8, Constable, stated that he was working with the then Officer Incharge, Ragunandan Jha in 2000. P.W8 has stated that he has seen the then Officer Incharge, Ragunandan Jha of Borijar police station reading and writing. This fardbeyan is written and signed by Ragunandan Jha. He recognized it and it has been marked as Ext.3. He has also proved endorsement of Ragunandan Jha on the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.3/1.He has also proved the signature of Ragunandan Jha on the formal FIR which has been marked as Ext. 3/2. He has also proved the inquest report which is written and signed by Krishna Kumar Sahi and he said that he also recognized the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.4. In his cross examination he stated that he did not know who was the author of the formal FIR 12. The learned Defense Counsel has argued that there is no eye witness to the incident and none of the prosecution witnesses have claimed to have seen the assault take place, hence the appellant is not liable to be convicted. The learned Defence counsel has further argued that the alleged murder weapon, which is a most crucial piece of evidence to establish the assault and murder, has not been exhibited nor produced in court. So in the absence of the murder weapon appellant's conviction cannot be upheld. Learned counsel for the defence has also argued that there was a land dispute going on between the parties and he has also submitted that the land dispute referred to above was decided in his favour. So in the absence of the murder weapon appellant's conviction cannot be upheld. Learned counsel for the defence has also argued that there was a land dispute going on between the parties and he has also submitted that the land dispute referred to above was decided in his favour. He has also indicated the records pertaining to the case wherein he has stated that in case T.R No. 206 of 1996, in the court of the Executive Magistrate, District Godda under section 145 Cr.P.C it was observed and held that Ramlal Murmu had been in possession from before and it was the second or opposite party that was harassing him. The Executive Magistrate had held that till an appropriate order was obtained the first party Ramlal Murmu would be in possession and the opposite party was not to disturb the same. So when the case was decided in his favour, why would he assault the deceased and kill him. Rather it is the complaining party and brothers who had a grievance and it is they who had a grievance to remove Ram Lal Murmu, the appellant. Finally he said that original I.O has not been examined so the appellant is prejudiced. Only he would have been able to provide information regarding the alleged murder weapon. 13. The learned counsel for the State has however, argued that enmity cuts both ways and the assault was definitely made by the appellant Ram Lal Murmu. This is clear from the statement of the deceased prior to his death. In his Fardbeyan the informant-deceased had clearly blamed the appellant for having assaulted him. This statement has to be accepted as dying declaration and is convincingly believable. At the door steps of death one is not expected to lie. Moreover, the deceased did not die immediately and he was rushed from the place of occurrence to the police station and hospital and thereafter to Sadar Hospital and in between he told many persons or many persons heard him saying, including the persons listed as witnesses that the appellant had assaulted him. P.W.1 Sukhu Tudu,P.W 2 Hakim Kisku and P.W 5 Betka Hembrom all independent witnesses have deposed that the deceased had told them that the appellant had assaulted or inflicted knife blow in his belly. P.W.1 Sukhu Tudu,P.W 2 Hakim Kisku and P.W 5 Betka Hembrom all independent witnesses have deposed that the deceased had told them that the appellant had assaulted or inflicted knife blow in his belly. Then the deceased persons brothers, P.W 3 Munshi Murmu and P.W 6 Guru Murmu have also deposed that they were also informed that appellant had inflicted knife blow to him. The testimonies of 3 independent witnesses and, the two brothers have to be believed. Even the Fardbeyan recorded by the Officer Incharge of the concerned police station is clear that appellant assaulted the deceased. The Fardbeyan has been proved to be in the writing and under the signature of Raghunandan Jha which has been proved by P.W 8, Rajesh Kumar who has recognized his handwriting and signature. The evidence of P.W 4, the Doctor is relevant to the extent that the deceased had informed that he was assaulted by a knife and the Doctor has given opinion that cause of death was by haemorrhage and shock resulting from perforating injury of abdomen caused by a sharp pointed weapon. This would be consistent with the use of the alleged knife. 14. In conclusion what seems to be of a clinching nature is that there were at least five persons who are on the record to have heard him or rather were told by the deceased that Ramlal Murmu had assaulted him apart from it seems many other co-villagers. P.W.1,P.W 2 and P.W 5 all independent witnesses have given evidence that the deceased prior to his death had told them that the appellant had assaulted him with a knife. He told the same thing to his brothers P.W. 3 and P.W 6. Finally, the Officer-in-charge, who recorded his fardbeyan, was told same thing and the fardbeyan was proved by P.W 8. So this seems to be a dying declaration that has been reduced to writing and that dying declaration was conveyed to not one, but at least six persons and does not appear to be incredible. 15. In Darshana Devi Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp.(4) S.C.C 126, it held that “…...Even though an oral dying declaration can form basis of conviction in a given case, but such a dying declaration has to be trustworthy and free from every blemish and inspire confidence. 15. In Darshana Devi Vs. State of Punjab reported in 1995 Supp.(4) S.C.C 126, it held that “…...Even though an oral dying declaration can form basis of conviction in a given case, but such a dying declaration has to be trustworthy and free from every blemish and inspire confidence. The reproduction of the exact words of the oral declaration in such case is very important...” (Para-10) 16. Here we state the words of the witnesses to whom Maidas Murmu informed about the assault to him by Ramlal Murmu. P.W.1 Sukhu Tudu said that deceased was alive. He has also said that Ram Lal Murmu had assaulted him with a knife. P.W.2 Hakim Klisku was informed that accused Ram Lal Murmu had assaulted deceased Maidas Murmu with a knife. P.W.3 Munsi Murmu stated that on asking the deceased he informed him that Ramlal Murmu had assaulted him with a knife and injured him. P.W 5 Betka Hembram said that he met with Maidas Murmu and was also able to converse with the deceased. P.W 5 said that Maidas Murmu informed that Ramlal Murmu had assaulted him. P.W.6 Guru Murmu said that when he asked his injured brother, then his brother informed him that Ramlal Murmu had assaulted him on the path. Maidas Murmu in his Fardbeyan has disclosed that on the path before crossing the river, at around 8 P.M. his relative Ramlal Murmu s/o Jeta Murmu was hiding there from before. He surrounded him and assaulted him near the navel on his stomach and injured him and ran away. At the close of his fardbeyan, the deceased again discloses that the reason for the incident is that there is a land related dispute going on in court and for this reason last Monday at around 8 p.m. with intention to kill, the accused assaulted him with a knife on his stomachache and injured him badly. 17. Another important aspect in this case is that he was alive for sometime after being assaulted and several and sufficient ocular evidence is there that he was capable of coherently making such an oral dying declaration to several persons and also in his fardbeyan. 18. 17. Another important aspect in this case is that he was alive for sometime after being assaulted and several and sufficient ocular evidence is there that he was capable of coherently making such an oral dying declaration to several persons and also in his fardbeyan. 18. In the light of evidence available including records available at hand, argument of both counsels, the oral dying declarations which he had, in fact, repeated in almost same terms to at least five persons and also that he seems to be though injured, however, coherent while making such dying declaration compel us to uphold the conviction of the appellant Ramlal Murmu under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, his punishment of rigorous imprisonment for life is also upheld. 19. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.