Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1163 (JHR)

Basu Surin v. State Of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2017-07-17

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. – Heard Mr. R. P. Gupta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner and learned Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deo, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. This application is directed against the judgment dated 17.06.1999 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 34 of 1999 by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge at Chaibasa, whereby and where under, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 26.03.1999 passed by learned 2nd Assistant Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 296 of of 1994, convicting the petitioner for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentencing him to R.I. for 05 years has been affirmed. 3. The allegation made in the F.I.R. is that the mother of the informant and the mother of the petitioner had started quarrelling with respect to some domestic issues which continued for a long period. It is alleged that in the evening the informant and his father went in front of the house of the petitioner and asked his mother not to quarrel at which the petitioner picked up a Farsa and assaulted both of them. Based on the aforesaid allegation Chakradharpur P.S. Case No. 52 of 1993 was instituted. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted, whereupon cognizance was taken and after the case was committed, charge was framed for the offences punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded . 4. In course of the trial seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W. 1 Shankarlal Chirania is a formal witness who has merely proved Ext. 1. P.W 2 Gorakhnath Bodra has stated that he was in his house when on alarm he went to the place of occurrence where he saw Kanu Surin and Panu Surin in an injured condition. This witness has deposed that on enquiry he came to know that those persons had been assaulted by the petitioner by Farsa. P.W. 3 Mohan Hansda was also in his house and on hearing the cry of alarm he came out and saw the informant and his father in injured condition. On enquiry he had come to know about the assault by the petitioner with a Farsa. He has further stated the victim Panu Surin had died two months back. P.W. 3 Mohan Hansda was also in his house and on hearing the cry of alarm he came out and saw the informant and his father in injured condition. On enquiry he had come to know about the assault by the petitioner with a Farsa. He has further stated the victim Panu Surin had died two months back. P.W. 4 Gurbari Surin is the wife of informant (PW 5) who has stated that she was in her courtyard and a quarrel between her mother-in-law and the mother of the petitioner was going on. She has further stated that when her husband and father-in-law went to pacify the matter both were assaulted by petitioner with Farsa. She appears to be an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W. 5 Kanu Surin is the informant who stated that when he and his father Panu Surin had gone to the place of occurrence to pacify the mother of the petitioner, the petitioner had all of a sudden assaulted both of them with Farsa which resulted in serious injuries suffered by them. P.W. 6 is a formal witness who has merely proved Ext. 3. P.W. 7 Dr. Prabha Minj has proved the injury report Ext.4/1. This witness has stated the informant and his father had suffered grievous injury. 5. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no independent eye witness to support the occurrence. It has been stated that only the informant and his wife are eye witnesses. Since they are related, their testimony cannot be believed. Learned counsel further submits that I.O. of the case has not been examined, which has caused prejudice to the prosecution case. He further submits that there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the informant and his father and merely because the quarrel was going on for a long time and when the informant and his father had gone to settle the quarrel, the same resulted in grave provocation, which led to the incident. The father of the informant was never examined as he died before the trial. It has thus been submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the petitioner deserves acquittal from the criminal case. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 7. The father of the informant was never examined as he died before the trial. It has thus been submitted that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and therefore the petitioner deserves acquittal from the criminal case. 6. Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the prayer of the petitioner. 7. It appears that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 in very categorical terms supported the prosecution case and have stated that merely on the informant and his father trying to pacify the mother of the petitioner with whom the mother of the informant had a long quarrel, the petitioner totally unprovoked had assaulted the informant and his father which resulted in grievous injury having been suffered by them. The nature of injuries does suggest that an attempt was made by the petitioner to do away with the life of the informant and his father. In fact the father of the informant had subsequently died. The evidence of PW 4 and 5 have been sufficiently corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 who had seen the informant and his father in an injured condition. Although P.W. 2 and 3 are not the eye witness to the actual assault made by the petitioner, but they have clearly stated that the incident was disclosed to them by both the injured persons and both of them were found in severely injured condition. The non-examination of the I.O. is not fatal to the prosecution case in view of the consistent evidence of P.W. 4 and 5 supported by PW. 2 and 3 and the place of occurrence had also been established. Thus the factual aspects of the case do point to the guilt of the petitioner in attempting to commit the murder of the informant and his father and on consideration of these facts, the petitioner has rightly been convicted under Section 307 I.P.C. and sentenced accordingly. The learned appellate court on proper appreciation of the materials available on record has dismissed the appeal. 8. There being no reason to conclude otherwise, the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the learned trial court and affirmed by the learned appellate court does not require any interference and as a consequence to the same this application fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.