Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1126 (JHR)

Rail Gagrai v. State of Jharkhand

2017-07-14

ANANDA SEN, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned amicus curie, for the appellants and the learned Addl. P.P. for the State. 2. This jail appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2004 and Order of sentence dated 15.10.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2004, where by the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 2000/- each. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of Jhingi Gagrai, wife of the deceased Rauto Gagrai (deceased). She has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 24.08.2003 when her husband had gone to his father's place in the same village. At about 7.30 P.M., in the night she heard the alarm raised by her husband that Rasai Gagrai and his family members were assaulting him, whereupon the informant along with her brother Rauto Bankira and others rushed to the place and found that in the lane in front of the house of Rasai Gagrai, her husband had fallen down. He was having injury in his stomach and intestine had protruded out from the wound. Her husband informed her that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by knife in his abdomen. The informant and other persons tried to tie the wound by cloth to stop the blood, but they did not succeed. As no doctor was available in the village, no medical help could be given to her husband, who died in the night at about 11 P.M. On the next day on 25.08.2003 at about 12.30 P.M., the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at her village Patahatu, on the basis of which, Sonua P.S. Case No. 40 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 203 of 2003, was instituted for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against all the accused-appellants. 4. After investigation, the police submitted the charge sheet against all the accused-appellants. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against all the three accused persons for the offence under sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial eight witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, out of whom, P.W.-2 Boshen Gagrai and P.W.-3 Ramo Gagrai are only witnesses to the inquest report of the dead body, who had only put their thumb impressions on the inquest report. 5. P.W.-4 Jhingi Gagrai is the informant of this case and the wife of the deceased. She has fully supported the prosecution case and has stated that upon hearing the alarm raised by her husband that the accused appellants were assaulting him, she rushed to the place, which is a lane between the house of Rasai and Singarai. She found the bleeding stab injury in the abdomen of her husband. Her husband informed her that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by bhujali. She has stated that after about one hour her husband died. She has stated that she had given her statement before the police, upon which she had put her thumb impression. She has identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, she has stated that when she reached at the place of occurrence, her husband was unconscious and was lying in the pool of blood, but at the same time she has denied the suggestion that she was not informed about the occurrence by her husband. She has stated that the accused persons are agnates. 6. P.W.-1 Rautu Bankira is the brother of the informant and he had also reached the place of occurrence along with the informant upon hearing the alarm raised by the deceased. He has also stated that he saw the deceased in the injured condition with blood oozing out from his abdomen and deceased informed that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by knife. After about one hour he died. Though this witness was put to cross-examination, but there was nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 7. After about one hour he died. Though this witness was put to cross-examination, but there was nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 7. Apart from the aforesaid two relative witnesses, the prosecution case is also supported by two other independent witnesses, who are P.W.-6 Silay Bankira and P.W.-7 Damu Gagrai. Both these witnesses have stated that upon the alarm raised by the deceased, they also reached the place and saw the deceased in injured condition and deceased informed the same thing that that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by knife in his abdomen and after some time, the deceased died. These witnesses have also identified the accused persons in the Court. P.W.-7 Damu Gagrai has also stated in his cross-examination that when he reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was in his senses and was not unconscious. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was unconscious at that time. 8. P.W.-5 Dr. Sawapan Kumar Singh is the medical officer, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 26.08.2003 at 12.30 P.M., and had found the following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:- 1. Sharp wound approximately 2”X1” over left side of abdomen with gangrenous small gut with maggots protruding outside. 2. Lacerated wound 1/2” X quarter inch over posterior aspect of left elbow. On dissection:- Head and neck - N.A.D. Thorax - Heart was empty, others N.A.D. Peritoneal cavity full of blood, spleen was ruptured perforation of ileum and descending colon. He has stated that the weapon used was sharp and pointed object and the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to rupture of spleen and perforation of ileum and descending colon. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-1. 9. P.W.-8 Rajesh Kumar Singh is the Investigating Officer of the case, who has stated that on 25.08.2004, he got the information that in village Patahatu one murder was committed, which he recorded in the station diary, being entry No. 321/2003 and he went to the place of occurrence, where he recorded the fardbeyan of Jhingi Kui. He has identified the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.-2. He has also identified the formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.-3. He has identified the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext.-2. He has also identified the formal F.I.R., which was marked as Ext.-3. He has also stated that he had sent the dead body for post-mortem examination and he recorded the statement of the witnesses. He received the post-mortem report and after completion of investigation, he submitted the charge sheet. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not sent the blood stained soil for scientific examination. He denied the suggestion to have made faulty investigation. 10. Learned amicus curie submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court, are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in view of the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the witnesses claimed that they were informed about the occurrence by the deceased itself. Learned amicus curie submitted that in view of the fact that the appellants are agnates of the deceased and there was an admitted enmity between them, the possibility of false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out, even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, and it is a fit case, in which the appellants were entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 11. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution case is not only supported by the family members of the deceased, who are wife and brother-in-law of the deceased, rather it is also supported by two other independent witnesses of the village, who are P.W.-6 Silaly Bankira and P.W.-7 Damu Gagrai, and they have also supported the prosecution case as stated by other witnesses and there is no scope of disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses. The deceased himself informed about the occurrence to the witnesses stating that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by knife, which ultimately proved to be the fatal. Learned counsel further submitted that the ocular evidence of the witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence P.W.-5 Dr. Sawapan Kumar Singh, who also found the same injury on the deceased. Learned counsel further submitted that the ocular evidence of the witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence P.W.-5 Dr. Sawapan Kumar Singh, who also found the same injury on the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though there is no eye witness to the occurrence of murder of the deceased, but the informant P.W.-4 Jhingi Gagrai and her brother P.W.-1 Rautu Bankira have stated that when they reached place of occurrence upon hearing the alarm raised by the deceased, they found the deceased in injured condition and the deceased informed them that Singa Gagrai and Rail Gagrai had apprehended him and Rasai Gagrai had assaulted him by knife in his abdomen. These witnesses have stated that after about one hour the deceased died. Though these witnesses are interested witnesses, but they are natural witnesses, who upon hearing the alarm raised by the deceased in the night hours, reached the place of occurrence and were informed about the occurrence by the deceased. There are two independent witnesses also, who are P.W.-6 Silay Bankira and P.W.-7 Damu Gagrai, who are co-villagers and they have also fully supported the prosecution case as stated by the wife and brother-in-law of the deceased. The ocular evidence of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the Medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Sawapan Kumar Singh and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1. 13. On the basis of the evidence on record, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against all the three the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. We find no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11.10.2004 and Order of sentence dated 15.10.2004, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellants as aforesaid, which we hereby, affirm. All the appellants are serving out the sentence in jail custody. 14. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance in this case by Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned amicus curie. All the appellants are serving out the sentence in jail custody. 14. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance in this case by Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned amicus curie. We direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of prescribed remuneration to Mr. Sunil Agarwal, learned amicus curie. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful. 15. This Criminal (Jail) Appeal, is accordingly, dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned along with a copy of this Judgment.