Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 87 (JHR)

Jai Ram Bhagat v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-12

D.N.UPADHYAY, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : By Court - This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 16.2.2006 and order of sentence dated 17.2.2006 whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under section 302/34 IPC for the murder of one Ram Sai Bhagat and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 2000/-each, for the offence punishable under section 307/34 rigorous imprisonment for five years with a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and further for the offence under section 323, rigorous imprisonment for one year, all sentences to run concurrently. 2. The facts reveal from fard-beyan of Jeet Ram Bhagat recorded on 8.3.2004 at about 12:15 hrs. at village Bandotoli within P.S. Dumri District Gumla is that on 7.3.2004 at about 8 p.m. the informant had gone to the house of appellant Sitaram Bhagat to make a complaint as to why they have put logs and wood on the way causing hindrance. It is alleged that all the four accused including appellants became furious and asked the informant as to how dare you to come to our house. Thereafter, they all started causing assault to the informant by means of lathi, tangi etc. The alarm raised by informant attracted his father-Ram Sai Bhagat, mother Chinia Orain and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Manki Minz, who intervened to save the informant but, they all were also subjected to assault by the appellants and their associates. Ram Sai Bhagat, father of the informant died on the spot whereas informant, his mother and sister-in-law (Bhabhi) sustained injuries on their person. 3. On the basis of fard-beyan of Jeet Ram Bhagat Gumla Dumri P.S. Case No. 05/2004 dated 8.3.2004 U/Ss. 341/323/324/307/302/34 I.P.C. was registered against the appellants and their associates. The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet accordingly, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. Case No. 189 of 2004. 4. Charges U/Ss. 341,302/34, 307 IPC were framed against the appellants and they were put on trial. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses including informant, doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Sai Bhagat and the doctor who examined the informant and other injured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial, held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable U/Ss. To substantiate the charges the prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses including informant, doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Sai Bhagat and the doctor who examined the informant and other injured. The learned Additional Sessions Judge at the conclusion of the trial, held the appellants guilty for the offence punishable U/Ss. 302/34, 307/34, 323 I.P.C. and sentenced them as indicated above. 5. The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that except PW-2 Chinia Orain and PW-11 Jeet Ram Bhagat (informant) no villagers have supported the prosecution case on the point of assault. The statements of PW-2 and PW-11 who have claimed themselves to be eye witnesses are not consistent. They have said that they had sustained injuries in the incident, but, manner of assault described by them, is not consistent. The place of occurrence has not been proved. It is admitted case of the informant as per fard-beyan that he had gone to the house of appellants and without seeking permission opened the door and entered in the house to make complaint. At that point of time exchange of hot words had taken place, but, it is incorrect to say that the appellants caused assault to informant. As a matter of fact, informant party was aggressor and they had made attempt to cause injuries to the appellants and their family members and with intension they had been to the place. The enmity between the parties was prevailing from before and that has also been admitted by the prosecution. The informant himself admits that his fard-beyan was not read over to him rather, he was asked to sign it and he did so. In para 8 of his cross-examination he says that the appellants reside in different houses, if it was so, there was no occasion for the appellants and their associates to assemble in the same house at the time of occurrence. He further admits that after having injuries, he became unconscious and in that state of mind his statement was recorded and he was asked to sign on the First Information Report. He further admits that after having injuries, he became unconscious and in that state of mind his statement was recorded and he was asked to sign on the First Information Report. Chinia Orain PW-2 in para 2 of her deposition says that the appellants and their associates dragged out informant Jeet Ram Bhagat and deceased Ram Sai Bhagat and then caused assault to them, but, according to fardbeyan it was informant who had gone to the house of the appellants to make a complaint and, at that time, incident took place. She has admitted that the village consists of 100-150 houses, but, surprisingly no one had seen the occurrence of assault. Devendra Minz, PW-1 happens to be a witness to the inquest. Rimis Barwa PW-3, Silvester Barwa PW-4 and Firan Lohra PW-6, are hearsay witnesses and they have simply said that they heard about the occurrence and had seen the dead body of Ram Sai Bhagat. Ajit Minz, PW-7 is a witness to fard-beyan and he has proved his signature appearing on the fard-beyan as Ext-4. This witness has said that he had seen the dead body of Ram Sai Bhagat in the courtyard of Sitaram Bhagat. If it was so, then place of occurrence is the house of appellants and that goes to suggest that informant party was the aggressor and they had made attack. John Lakra PW-8 had turned hostile. Doctor Krishna Prasad, PW-5 had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of Ram Sai Bhagat whereas, Doctor Albel Kerketta had proved the injury report. Thus, it is clear that no villager had supported the prosecution case. Informant and his mother are highly interested witnesses and they have implicated the appellants and their brothers with false allegation and they have not given true picture of the occurrence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge had not appreciated the evidence on record and erred in holding the appellants guilty for the offence of murder and offence punishable u/s 307 IPC. 6. Learned A.P.P. opposed the arguments and submitted that Jeet Ram Bhagat PW-11 (informant), Chinia Orain PW-2 are the injured witnesses and they have fully supported the prosecution case. Minor contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence is appearing in their statements, but, that is not very much important because the eye witnesses have been examined and they have proved the case. Minor contradictions with regard to the place of occurrence is appearing in their statements, but, that is not very much important because the eye witnesses have been examined and they have proved the case. The injuries caused to P.W.-2 and P.W.-11 find support from the injury reports proved by Dr. Albel Kerketta P.W.-10. It is pointed out that on the date of occurrence there was Holi festival and the villagers were in festive mood. They had been visiting the houses of each other to greet them. The place of occurrence has well been proved by the investigating officer PW-9. The statement of informant PW11 is consistent that he had gone to the house of appellants only to make complaint against keeping of bundle of wood on the way. He had knocked the door, but, immediately the appellants came out of the house and started assaulting him by means of lathi, tangi etc. The houses of appellants as well as informant are nearer to each other. PW-8 has turned hostile, but, PW-1, PW-3 and PW-6 have given hearsay account of the occurrence. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the case records. We have also examined the evidence and documents proved by the prosecution. The prosecution case is mainly banking on evidence of PW-2 and PW-11, who are the injured witnesses and also relatives of the deceased. In such circumstances, evidence of those two witnesses are to be scrutinized with care and caution. As per the evidence of PW-11, he had gone to the house of appellants to make a complaint as to why they had put bundle of wood on the way, causing hindrance. On receiving complaint, the appellants became furious and started causing assault to PW-11 by means of lathi, tangi etc. Hearing the commotion, father of the informant Ram Sai Bhagat (now deceased) along with mother Chinia Orain PW-2 and sister-in-law went to rescue but, the four appellants assaulted all of them, resulting in the death of Ram Sai Bhagat whereas, mother of the informant sustained grievous injuries. The injuries caused to PW-2 and PW-11 find support from the evidence of PW-10 Albel Kerketta who has proved the injury report Ext. 9, 9/1 and 9/2. We do not find that appellants while cross-examining the witnesses have given any suggestion regarding place of occurrence. The injuries caused to PW-2 and PW-11 find support from the evidence of PW-10 Albel Kerketta who has proved the injury report Ext. 9, 9/1 and 9/2. We do not find that appellants while cross-examining the witnesses have given any suggestion regarding place of occurrence. According to admitted evidence, the occurrence commenced when the informant had gone to make a complaint to the house of appellants. Thereafter, PW-2 and the deceased attracted towards informant and they went to rescue him. It is not the case of appellants that the deceased and PW-2 entered in their house. The circumstances in which occurrence took place and the manner in which the assault was caused to informant, PW-2 and the deceased clearly goes to suggest that place of occurrence did not remain confined to a particular place. It appears from the evidence on record that occurrence took place on the date of Holi festival and time of occurrence was about 8 p.m. The place of occurrence is a village. Normally, on the occasion of Holi festival, the people used to indulge in playing with colour during day hour and after sun set, either they remain confined in their respective houses or they used to go to houses of friends and relatives to greet them. Since it was Holi festival and the people were in festive mood, the offence which took place near the house of appellants and the informant, stood unnoticed by the villagers. Therefore, witnesses who reached to the place of occurrence after the incident and received information regarding occurrence from the informant and injured witnesses PW-2, have given hearsay account of the occurrence in their deposition. The prosecution has proved inquest report, fardbeyan, formal FIR, seizure list , post-mortem report etc. The investigating officer has supported the investigation done by him and described the details of investigation. The appellants have neither taken plea of right of private defence nor, they brought on record any documents to show that the informant party were aggressor and they had caused assault to the appellant. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-11 cannot be discarded only because they are relatives of the deceased. They are the most reliable witnesses because they are the injured witnesses and the injuries caused to them during incident, find support from the evidence of Dr. Albel Kerketta PW-10. 8. The evidence of PW-2 and PW-11 cannot be discarded only because they are relatives of the deceased. They are the most reliable witnesses because they are the injured witnesses and the injuries caused to them during incident, find support from the evidence of Dr. Albel Kerketta PW-10. 8. So in the light of the evidence available on record, and what we have been able to deduce, this court holds and sustains the guilt of the accused appellants under Section 302/34 IPC for the murder of the deceased Ram Sai Bhagat and for the offence u/s 307/34 made against Chinia Orain, and for offence u/s 323 IPC made against Jeet Ram Bhagat. Accordingly, the sentence for murder u/s 302/34 with rigorous life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2000/-each and the sentence u/s 307/34 of five years each, with a fine of Rs. 1000/-each and sentence u/s 323 IPC of rigorous imprisonment for one year is also sustained and will run concurrently and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.2.2006 and 17.2.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla in connection with Sessions Trial Case no. 189 of 2004 corresponding to G.R. Case no. 146 of 2004, Gumla (Dumri) P.S. Case no. 05 of 2004 is, hereby upheld. 9. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.