Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1927 (JHR)

Ganesh Godsora v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-11

H.C.MISHRA, RATNAKER BHENGRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. Appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2005, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2005, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of one Natho Pingua, the nephew of the deceased, recorded on 05.10.2004 at 15:30 hours at village Baihatu, in the district of West Singhbhum. Informant has stated that on 03.10.2004, his aunt Sukurmani Pingua went out of the house but, she did not return back. She was searched but she could not be found. On 04.10.2004, her dead body was found in bushes near the cremation ground with her head smashed. The village Munda was informed, who called a meeting in the village, in which, the accused Ganesh Godsora confessed that he had committed the murder of the deceased, assaulting her by stone, due to land dispute. As by that time it had become dark, the police was informed the next day, whereupon, the police came and recorded the fardbeyan, on the basis of which, Gua P.S. Case No. 36 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 432 of 2004 was instituted against the accused Ganesh Godsora for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was taken up. Upon investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. In course of trial, seven witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution, including the Investigating Officer and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. One witness, PW5 Natho Thathora was only tendered by the prosecution. 6. PW1 Natho Pingua is the informant of this case, who has supported the prosecution case, stating that his aunt Sukurmani Pingua, had gone out of the house on 3rd, and when she did not return back, she was searched. On 4th, her dead body was found near the cremation ground with injuries. He informed the village Munda, who called a meeting of the villagers and made inquiry, in which, accused Ganesh Godsora confessed that he had assaulted the deceased by stone causing her death. He also said that he had assaulted the deceased, due to land dispute. On the next day, police came and recorded his fardbeyan, which he had given in Ho language, which was translated in Hindi by Munda. It was read over to informant and he put his thumb impression on it and the Munda put his signature on it. He has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing much importance in his cross-examination. 7. PW2 Chintamani Champia is the Munda of the village. He has stated that Sukurmani was murdered. He got information on 04.10.2004 and he saw the dead body near the cremation ground. He called a meeting of the villagers, in which, Ganesh Godsora confessed that he had assaulted the deceased by stone causing her death, due to land dispute. Police also came and recorded the fardbeyan of Natho Pingua, which, was given in Ho language and it was translated by this witness. It was read over to the informant and finding it true, the informant put his thumb impression on it and this witness also put his signature on it. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext. 1. He has also stated that the police prepared the inquest report of the dead body. He and other witness put their signatures thereon. He has identified the signatures, which were marked as Exts. 1/1 and 1/2. He has identified his signature on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext. 1. He has also stated that the police prepared the inquest report of the dead body. He and other witness put their signatures thereon. He has identified the signatures, which were marked as Exts. 1/1 and 1/2. He has also stated that the stone, by which, the assault was made by the accused, was also recovered and seizure list was prepared by the police, on which also, he and other witnesses had put their signatures, which, he had identified and the same were marked as Exts. 1/3, 1/4 and 1/5. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had no knowledge about the land dispute between the deceased and the accused and he could know about the involvement of the accused only upon disclosure made by the accused. 8. PW3 Ghazi Pingua and PW4 Dullu Pingua, the son of the informant, have also supported the prosecution case stating that they had attended the meeting called by the Munda, in which, the accused had confessed his guilt. 9. PW6 Dr. B.K. Singh is the Medical Officer, who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 06.10.2004 at 9:45 a.m., and had found following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased : "External :- (i) Rigor mortis absent, body swollen, Maggots present in wound of scalp mouth and nose. Greenish colour discolouration present over abdomen and dependent part i.e. back and buttock etc. (ii) Scalp was flattened, brain matter was eaten up by maggots. Lacerated wound of scalp-5" x 2-1/2" deep to the cavity. On Dissection :- (i) Head and neck-Parietal, frontal, occipital and right temporal bone fractured. (ii) Thorax-2-8 ribs on both sides of chest were fractured, lungs on both side had lacerated injury. Heart-right chamber full, left chamber empty. (iii) Abdomen-Stomach empty, liver, spleen, kidney, uterus-NAD, Urinary bladder empty." He has stated that the cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage due to head injury and the other injuries. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, such as, stone. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext. 2. 10. PW7 is Akshay Kumar Ram, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. Injuries were caused by hard and blunt object, such as, stone. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext. 2. 10. PW7 is Akshay Kumar Ram, who is the Investigating Officer of the case. This witness has stated that he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Gua Police Station on 05.10.2004, and on that date, village Munda informed him about the murder of a lady in his village. Sanha entry was made and he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He saw the dead body of the lady at the cremation ground. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Natho Pingua in presence of Munda Chintamani Champia. Munda translated the fardbeyan from Ho language to Hindi, which was read over to the informant and the informant put his thumb impression on it and the Munda also put his signature. He has identified the fardbeyan to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext. 3. He has also identified the endorsement made on the fardbeyan, which was marked as Ext. 3/1. This Witness took up investigation of the case. He prepared inquest report, which, he proved and the same was marked as Ext. 4. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and arrested the accused from his house, who confessed his guilt and his confession was recorded, on the basis of which, blood stained stone was recovered near the place of occurrence. He has identified the confessional statement in his pen and signature, which was marked as Ext. 6. He has also identified the seizure list of the blood stained stone, which was marked as Ext. 7 and has stated that he had sent the blood stained stone to FSL for examination. This witness has stated that he received the post-mortem report and recorded the statements of the witnesses. After completing investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. He has also proved the formal FIR, which was marked as Ext. 8. He has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, he has denied the evidence against him. He has also proved the formal FIR, which was marked as Ext. 8. He has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 11. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein, he has denied the evidence against him. On the basis of the evidence on record, appellant Ganesh Godsora was found guilty, and was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as it is based only on the confessional statement of the accused, which was recorded either before the police or before the village Munda, who also enjoys the police powers. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but, since it is based on the confessional statement of the accused-appellant, he ought to have been acquitted. 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that prosecution witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case, in view of the fact that all the witnesses have stated that the accused confessed his guilt in their presence, to have committed the murder of the deceased, assaulting her by stone. Confessional statement of this accused had led to the recovery of the blood stained stone from the bushes near the cremation ground, on the pointing out by the accused. This is fully supported by the evidence of PW7 Akshay Kumar Ram, the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that ocular evidence in this case is fully supported by the medical evidence of PW6 Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, who found the scalp of the deceased flattened, ribs of the deceased were fractured and lungs on both sides had lacerated injuries, causing death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the State has accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Birendra Kumar Singh, who found the scalp of the deceased flattened, ribs of the deceased were fractured and lungs on both sides had lacerated injuries, causing death of the deceased. Learned counsel for the State has accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case has been supported by all the material witnesses, including PW1 Natho Pingua, the informant and PW2 Chintamani Champia, the Munda of the village, stating that in their presence the accused had confessed his guilt. Ocular evidences are fully corroborated by PW6 Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh and the post-mortem report proved by him, which was marked as Ext. 2. Blood stained stone, which is the weapon of offence, has been recovered on the pointing out by the accused himself as would be evident from the evidence of PW 7 Akshay Kumar Ram, the Investigating Officer. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view, that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 15. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 12.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 15.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. FTC-II, Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Ganesh Godsora for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are hereby affirmed. The appellant is already in custody undergoing the sentence. 16. There is no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back forthwith to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment. Appeal dismissed.