Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1355 (JHR)

Helena Lakra v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-08-03

RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2017
JUDGMENT Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. - This application is directed against the judgment dated 13.1.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 58 of 2004, whereby and where under, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have been acquitted for the charges levelled against them for the offence under section 302/34 of IPC. 2. Prosecution story in brief is that in the night of 14.12.2003 at about 7 P.M., the informant was in her house along with her family members when her cousin brother-Augustin Kerketta, opposite party no. 2 and his wife Karlina Kerketta, opposite party no. 3, came there with lathi, danda and drove her husband out of her house. It is alleged that opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had assaulted the husband of the informant as a result of which he fell down senseless. It is further alleged that after raising alarm, her neighbours had come and saved them from further assault. It is also alleged that after a few moment, her husband had died. 3. Based on the aforesaid allegations, G.R. Case No. 369 of 2003 was instituted. Investigation resulted in submission of charge sheet for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and after cognizance was taken, case was committed to the court of sessions, where charge was framed and trial proceeded. In course of trial, twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. P.W-1-Adberd Dungdung has stated that he had come to learn at about 9 P.M. on 14.12.2003 that the accused persons had killed the husband of the informant. He had stated that on the next day, police had come and prepared inquest report, in which he had also signed, which has been marked as Ext-1. P.W-2-Isidore Lakra had stated that on getting information about the occurrence, he had come to the place of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries. He had stated that on the next day, police had come and prepared inquest report, in which he had signed, which has been marked as Ext-1/1. P.W-3-Halena Lakra is the wife of the informant, who is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. She has stated that in the night of 14.12.2003 at about 7 P.M. when she was in her house along with her family members, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had come and had started assaulting her husband. P.W-3-Halena Lakra is the wife of the informant, who is the sole eye witness to the occurrence. She has stated that in the night of 14.12.2003 at about 7 P.M. when she was in her house along with her family members, opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had come and had started assaulting her husband. She had further stated that when her son Jonson Lakra went to save his father, he was caught by one Nuwas Lakra, brother in law of O.P. No. 2. She had further stated that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 had assaulted her husband thereafter her husband fell down senseless and on alarm being raised, Libnus Kerketta, Novel Kerketta and Birju Indwar had come to the place of occurrence and saved them. P.W-4-Libnus Kerketta had stated that in the morning the informant had called him and took him to her house where he found the deceased was sleeping. In cross-examination, he had stated that prior to the occurrence, informant had gone to Dhingurpani and she had told him that at the time of return from the said place, deceased had fallen down on the road and she had called this witness because the deceased was not breathing. P.W-5-Novel Kerketta, P.W-6-Birju Indwar, P.W-7-Anthres Baghwa, P.W-8-Maksima Kerketta and P.W-9-Bimla Devi have not supported the prosecution case and they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. P.W-10-Ratan Kumar Singh is the Officer in charge of Simdega P.S. and the Investigating Officer, who had prepared Fardbeyan, which has been marked as Ext-2. This witness had examined the witnesses under section 161 Cr.P.C., 1973 and had subsequently submitted charge sheet against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. P.W-11-U.C. Sinha is the doctor, who had held postmortem on the body of the deceased and he had found external injury in the right forearm of the deceased. This witness had proved his injury report, which has been marked as Ext-5. P.W.-12-Ramchandra Ram had stated that in order to verify the rumor of a murder, he had gone to the place of occurrence and on his dictation, the statement of the informant was recorded. 4. The prosecution case relies on the evidence of P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, who have been declared hostile and there are no other witnesses, who have claimed to have seen the occurrence. 4. The prosecution case relies on the evidence of P.Ws.5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, who have been declared hostile and there are no other witnesses, who have claimed to have seen the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 are also not the eye witnesses as they have merely stated that they have come to know that O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have committed the murder of the husband of the informant. Even the version of the informant creates a doubt on the prosecution story itself as whatever has been stated by her as also the presence of other witnesses when the incident was taking place, has been disbelieved by the learned trial court on the ground that those witnesses did not support the prosecution case and were thus declared hostile. It further appears that even the son of the informant has not been examined although it is the case of the prosecution that at the time when the husband of the informant was being assaulted by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3, the sons namely Jonson Lakra and Libnus Kerketta, Novel Kerketta and Birju Indwar were also present and in fact Jonson Lakra had tried to save his father from being assaulted by the O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. The evidence of the doctor suggests that only one external injury on the right forearm was found on the person of the deceased. Some of the witnesses including P.W-8 have stated that the informant had disclosed to him that while coming from Dhingurpani, the deceased had fallen down and had received injury on his hand. Version of this witness appears to be corroborating in view of the medical report which suggests that deceased had external injury on his right forearm. Thus the version of P.W-3, the informant, has been disbelieved in view of the surrounding circumstances, in which the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and even her own son has not deposed against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3. Allegation against O.P. Nos. 2 and 3 have therefore been falsified by the evidence of the other witnesses and in view of the contradictory statement of P.W-3, the informant, the same has rightly been disbelieved by the learned trial court. 5. There being no reasons to hold otherwise, I do not find any merit in this application, which is accordingly dismissed.