Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2014 (JHR)

Kaira Purty v. State of Jharkhand

2017-11-23

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : By Court.- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 5.12.2007 and Order of sentence passed on 6.12.2007, passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2006, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the sole appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Ludri Laguri, aged about 14 years, the daughter of the deceased Sombari Kui, recorded on 13.7.2005 at 14.30 hours in her house. The informant has stated that her father had died earlier and she along with her mother and a younger sister Budhni Laguri were living in the house. On 12.7.2005 at about 7 p.m., in the evening, her mother was preparing food and both the sisters were sitting there along with their mother. In the meantime, Kaira Purty came armed with bhujali and shabal and started assaulting her mother. He first assaulted her mother by bhujali and when she fell down, he assaulted her by shabal. The informant came out of her house and raised alarm. After some time, the accused fled away. When she entered her house, she found her mother dead and her younger sister was crying there. She took her sister to the house of her father's sister in the same village, and informed about the occurrence. As it was night she remained there for whole night. In the morning her father's sister informed the village Munda about the occurrence. The Munda came to the place of occurrence and informed the police. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Nowamundi P.S.Case No. 33 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 419 of 2005 was instituted for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Kaira Purty, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Nowamundi P.S.Case No. 33 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 419 of 2005 was instituted for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Kaira Purty, and investigation was taken up. After investigation the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 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, prosecution has examined 7 witnesses in this case, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 6. P.W.2-Ludri Laguri is the informant of the case. She has stated that her father had died earlier and her mother had been killed by the accused Kaira Purty. The occurrence took place one year ago on a Tuesday in the evening. She was in her house along with her mother and younger sister, when Kaira came and assaulted her mother by bhujali and shabal. At that time, her mother was preparing food and one earthen lamp was burning there. She has stated that while the accused was assaulting her mother, she concealed herself behind the door and thereafter she went to the house of her father's sister, namely, Chanda Kui, but due to fear she remained in the house of her father's sister at night and in the next morning, she went to the house of Munda and Munda informed the police, whereupon the police came and recorded her statement, on which she put her thumb impression. She has identified the accused in the Court. Though this witness has been put to cross-examination, but the defence could not take anything in her cross-examination so as to discredit her testimony. She has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. P.W. 1-Budhni Laguri is a child witness aged about 8 years and she is the younger sister of the informant. She has stated that her mother was killed by Kaira Purty. Kaira Purty used to visit her house and he killed her mother by bhujali and shabal, when her mother was cooking the food. On seeing the occurrence, she concealed herself behind the door. She has stated that her mother was killed by Kaira Purty. Kaira Purty used to visit her house and he killed her mother by bhujali and shabal, when her mother was cooking the food. On seeing the occurrence, she concealed herself behind the door. She has also stated that a pair of slippers of Kaira Purty and the cover of bhujali were left at the place of occurrence, when the accused had tied away. Thereafter she came to the house of her father's sister and informed her. Due to the fear she remained in the house of her father's sister and on the next day, the Munda of the village was informed who informed the police through phone. The police came and took the dead body to Chaibasa. She has also identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that she had raised alarm after the occurrence and the persons nearby had assembled there. She has also stated that the Munda had recorded her statement, whereupon she put her thumb impression. She has also stated that the accused Kaira Purty had assaulted her mother by bhujali and shabal. She has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 8. P.W. 3-Chando Kui is the father's sister of the informant. She stated that Budhni and Ludri came to her house at night and informed that her mother had been killed. Budhni and Ludri remained in her house in the night and on the next day, she along with both the sisters had gone to Munda and informed the Munda that their mother had been killed by Kaira Purty. Munda came and saw the dead body and thereafter he informed the police. She had identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness, however, has stated that both the sisters had gone to the Munda to give information about the occurrence, and she was sleeping in her house. She has also denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 9. P.W. 4-Ghanshyam Purty is the Munda of the village. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 12.7.2005, and he was informed by Budhni, Ludri and Chando Kui on 13.7.2005 at about 6:00 a.m., that Kaira purty had committed the murder of the deceased. He went to the Police Station and informed the police. 9. P.W. 4-Ghanshyam Purty is the Munda of the village. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 12.7.2005, and he was informed by Budhni, Ludri and Chando Kui on 13.7.2005 at about 6:00 a.m., that Kaira purty had committed the murder of the deceased. He went to the Police Station and informed the police. Thereupon, the police came at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Ludri. The police also seized a pair of slippers and a cover of bhujali and took away the dead body. He has stated that the paper of dead body was prepared at the Police Station, on which he had put his signature along with Mangal Singh Purti. He has identified both the signatures on the Inquest Report, which were marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1. He has also identified his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Exhibit-1/2. This witness has identified the accused in the court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 10. P.W.5-Gangaram Purty, is the maternal uncle of the informant, who has stated that the deceased was his sister and he was informed by both the sisters that on 12.7.2005, Kaira Purty had committed the murder of his sister by rod and bhujali. He was informed about the occurrence on 13.7.2005 at about 10 a.m. Thereupon, he went to the place of occurrence. The police also came there are recorded the statement of the girls. The police had seized the slippers and the cover of bhujali. He has identified his signature and signature of other witness on the seizure list. He has also identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in his cross-examination. 11. P.W. 6-Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, is one of the members of the Board of three Doctors, who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 14.7.2005, and found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- "Blood clot was present over head, face, neck and upper chest. Eyes were closed. External injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 5" x 1" x deep to brain matter over right perietal occipital area of skull above right ear with blood clots. 2. Incised wound of size 4" x 1/2" x deep to' bone over left side of frontal area of skull with blood clots. 3. Eyes were closed. External injuries: 1. Lacerated wound 5" x 1" x deep to brain matter over right perietal occipital area of skull above right ear with blood clots. 2. Incised wound of size 4" x 1/2" x deep to' bone over left side of frontal area of skull with blood clots. 3. Incised wound 1" x 1/2" x deep to bone below left eye with blood clots. 4. Incised wound 1" x 1/2' x deep to bone on left cheek below the wound No.3. 5. Part of uterus bulging out at the vulva. On dissection:- Meninges and brain matter lacerated-Fracture of rights side, parietal and occipital bone. Heart was empty. Liver was pale. Stomach contained semi-digested food particles. Uterus contained male foetus of size 25 cm like hairs are present on skull. Foetus with cord had been preserved for further analysis, if required. Other viscera intact. Foetus age was five months approx." This witness has stated that the cause of death was head injury, hemorrhage and shock. Injury No. 1 was caused by hard and blunt object and Injury Nos. 2 to 4 were caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury No.1. may be caused by shabal and injuries Nos. 2 to 4 may be caused by bhujali. He has identified the post mortem report to be in the pen of Dr. Murli Manish, one of the members of the team; and all of the three Doctors including this witness had put their signatures, which he identified and the post mortem report was marked Exhibit-2. In his cross examination this witness has stated that a joint post mortem report was submitted bearing the signatures of all the three Doctors including this witness. 12. P.W.7-Vijay Shankar Prasad, is I.O. of the case. He has stated that he was posted as S.I. of Police on 13.7.2005 in Nowamundi Police Station, when he was handed over the charge of investigation of the case by the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station. He has proved the formal FIR to be in his pen and bearing the signature of the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station, which was marked as Exhibit-3. He has also identified the fardbeyan to be in the pen and signature of the Officer-Incharge, which was marked as Exhibit-4. He has also proved the Inquest Report which was marked as Exhibit-5. He has proved the formal FIR to be in his pen and bearing the signature of the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station, which was marked as Exhibit-3. He has also identified the fardbeyan to be in the pen and signature of the Officer-Incharge, which was marked as Exhibit-4. He has also proved the Inquest Report which was marked as Exhibit-5. He has stated that upon taking over the charge of the investigation, he recorded the statement of the informant and also recorded the statements of the other witnesses. He has given the details of the place of occurrence and has stated that the house of the deceased was in an isolated place. He found the dead body in the house in the pool of blood and near the dead body one pair of slippers and one plastic cover of bhujali were there. There was utensil on chulha with burnt food. He seized the slippers and the cover of bhujali from the place of occurrence and prepared seizure list, which he had identified and the same was marked as Exhibit-5. The accused had surrendered in the Court. He got the post mortem report and after completing the investigation, he submitted the chargesheet. He has also identified the accused present in the Court. In his crossexamination, he has stated that the information about the occurrence was received in the Police Station at about 13.00 hours for which sanha entry was made. He has stated that the dead body was in the pool of blood, but he had not seized blood from the place of occurrence. He had not seized the utensil and the burnt food, nor he had seized the lamp from the place of occurrence. He has also stated that he-had not found blood in the utensil and on the wall of the house, nor he had found the bhujali and shabal. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 13. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 14. 13. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the sole appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below are absolutely illegal and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that P.W.1-Budhni Laguri stated in her cross-examination that upon alarm raised by her, nearby persons came on the place of occurrence, but the statement of no nearby witness was recorded by the I.O. Learned counsel has also tried to point out some discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, but they are only natural contradictions. It is also submitted that there is delay in lodging the FIR, in as much as, occurrence had taken place at about 7.00 p.m., in the evening and the FIR was lodged at 2.30 p.m., on the next day. Learned counsel, accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and in the facts of the case, the appellant ought to have been given at least the benefit of doubt. 15. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the sole appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, in as much as, P.W.1 Budhni Laguri and P.W. 2-Ludhri Laguri are the daughters of the deceased and both are natural eyewitnesses of the occurrence. They have fully support the prosecution case and nothing could be taken by the defence in their cross-examination, so as to discredit their testimony. It is submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, who had found the ante mortem injuries caused by bhujali and shabal on the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below. 16. Birendra Kumar Singh, who had found the ante mortem injuries caused by bhujali and shabal on the dead body of the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below. 16. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that occurrence had taken place after sunset in the house of deceased, where the deceased and only her two minor daughters were present. Both the daughters have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2, and they have fully supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses to the occurrence and have stated that Kaira Purty came armed with bhujali and shabal and assaulted their mother causing her death on the spot. After the occurrence they went to the house of their father's sister in the same village and spent the night in her house due to fear, which is only the natural conduct of the children of their age. The Munda was informed on the next day morning and the evidence of the I.O. shows that the police was informed about the occurrence at about 1.00 p.m. Thereafter, the police reached at the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of the informant Ludri Laguri at about 2.30 pm. We find that there is absolutely no unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The two daughters of the deceased are the only natural eyewitnesses to the occurrence, as the house of the deceased was located in an isolated place, as stated by the I.O. in his evidence. The evidence of both the eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 6-Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh, who found one lacerated wound and three incised wounds on the dead body of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause death in natural course, and the Doctor has also opined that these injuries could be caused by bhujali and shabal. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubts, and we find no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, convicting and sentencing the appellant Kaira Purty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 17. 17. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 5.12.2007 and Order of sentence dated 6.12.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 4 of 2006, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is in custody, serving out the sentence. 18. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment.