Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 2079 (JHR)

Ramu Pahan v. State of Jharkhand

2017-12-02

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, H.C.MISHRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : H.C. Mishra, J. 1. Heard learned amicus curiae, appointed by the Court for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 11th July 2007 and Order of sentence dated 12th July 2007, passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, in S.T. No. 558 of 2003, 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 appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the said offence. 3. The case relates to double murder, in which, the deceased were the wife and husband, and were closely related to the accused. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Bati Kumari, aged about 18 years, who is the own sister of the accused, which was recorded at Sub Divisional Hospital, Khunti, on 8.1.1999 at 9:30 hours, where she was undergoing treatment. She has stated that she was living with her uncle and aunt, who were her father's sister and her husband, from her childhood, as they had no issue. On 7.1.1999, at about 6.00 P.M., her own brother Ramu Pahan came to the house and he stayed there. In the night, all of them had taken meal and when they were going to sleep, her brother started searching tangi. She asked as to why he was searching tangi, but he did not speak anything and took the sabbal kept there and entered the room of her uncle and aunt and when they raised alarm, she also went there and found that both of them had been assaulted by the accused by sabbal. When she reached there, she was also assaulted by sabbal by the accused, causing injury on her head and thereafter, the accused fled away. Upon the alarm raised by her, nearby people came and brought her for treatment. She has stated that both her uncle and aunt died. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Bati Kumari, Khunti P.S. Case No. 4 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 13 of 1999, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Ramu Pahan, and investigation was taken up. She has stated that both her uncle and aunt died. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Bati Kumari, Khunti P.S. Case No. 4 of 1999, corresponding to G.R. No. 13 of 1999, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Ramu Pahan, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, the charge was framed against the sole accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. No charge was framed for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined five witnesses. The I.O. has not been examined in the case and the fardbeyan of the informant, and the FIR have not been proved. 6. P.W.-3 Bati Kumari is the informant in the case. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place about four years ago. She was living in village Jojohatu with her aunt Kunwari Devi (her father's sister) and her husband Lodero Munda, as they were issue-less,. In the evening, Ramu Pahan came and all of them took meal and they were making preparation to sleep. Ramu Pahan started searching something and he got the sabbal and he assaulted her uncle and aunt by sabbal and when she came to their rescue, Ramu Pahan assaulted her also by the sabbal on her head, causing bleeding injury. She showed the scar of the wound in the Court also. She has stated that the couple died at the spot and upon the alarms raised, some persons assembled there and she was brought to hospital, where her fardbeyan was recorded by the police, and finding the same to be true, she had put her thumb impression. She has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 7. P.W.-2 Lodero Munda is the nephew of the deceased Lodero Munda. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 7.1.1999 and about 6 PM. Accused Ramu Pahan had came to the house of his uncle as guest. She has identified the accused in the Court. There is nothing in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony. 7. P.W.-2 Lodero Munda is the nephew of the deceased Lodero Munda. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place on 7.1.1999 and about 6 PM. Accused Ramu Pahan had came to the house of his uncle as guest. After taking meal, when everyone was going to sleep, Ramu Pahan started searching tangi and when he could not get the tangi, he took the sabbal kept there. He assaulted her aunt Kunwari Devi by sabbal and when his uncle tried to save her, he was also assaulted by Ramu Pahan. Due to the assaults, both of them died. When Bati Kumari went to save them, she was also assaulted by Ramu Pahan by sabbal causing injuries on her head. Bati Kumari was brought to Khunti Hospital for treatment. On 8.1.1999. The police had visited the place of occurrence and had prepared the inquest reports of the dead bodies, on which he had put his signature, which he has identified, which were earlier marked as Exts. 1 and 1/1. (It appears from the record that subsequently by order dated 9.7.2007, both the inquest reports were marked Exhibit-5 and 6 respectively). He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that his house is adjacent to his uncle's house and the occurrence had taken place at about 9.00 PM. This witness has admitted that upon the death of his uncle and aunt, he was to inherit their property and he has denied the suggestion that for the greed of the property, he had committed the murder of his uncle and aunt. 8. P.W-1 Khundnath Manaki and P.W.-4 Hindu Munda are the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, who have supported the prosecution case, as informed by the informant. They have also stated that due to the assault made by the accused Ramu Pahan, both the deceased had died and the informant was injured when she had gone to save them. P.W.-1 Khundanath Manaki has stated that the inquest reports of the dead bodies were prepared in his presence, on which, he and Lodero Munda had put their signatures and he identified both the signatures on both the inquest reports, which were marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 respectively. P.W.-1 Khundanath Manaki has stated that the inquest reports of the dead bodies were prepared in his presence, on which, he and Lodero Munda had put their signatures and he identified both the signatures on both the inquest reports, which were marked as Exhibit-1 and 1/1 respectively. P.W.-4 Hindu Munda had reached the place of occurrence upon alarm raised by Bati Kumari, and he had seen the accused fleeing away. P.W.-4 has also admitted in his cross-examination that after the death of the couple, he was to inherit their property, and he has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused in the greed of that property. 9. P.W.-5 Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutta had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of Lodero Munda on 8.1.1999 and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- i. Right ear pinna cut 3" long near mandible. ii. Left side of thorox and second and third inter coastal space cut injury deep 2". iii. Trangular 1" x 2" x 5" cut with sharp weapon, heart punctured at ventricle and atrium. No blood in peritonium. He has stated that all the injures were ante-mortem in nature and were the cause of the death. He has stated that the injuries were caused by sharp cut weapon, such as sabbal. He has identified the post-mortem report of the deceased Lodero Munda to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit-2. This witness has also identified the post-mortem report of Kunwari Devi and the injury report of Bati Kumari to be in pen and signature of Dr. Umeshwari Kumari, who was personally known to him, and had conducted the post-mortem examination on the said deceased and had examined the injured and the same were marked as Exhibit-3 and 4 respectively. This witness was not cross-examined by the accused and hence he was discharged. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein, he has only denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of these evidences on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 wherein, he has only denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of these evidences on record, the accused has been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence cannot be sustained in the eyes of the law, in view of the fact that the accused has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, but neither the fardbeyan, nor the formal FIR has been proved in the case. It is submitted that even the inquest reports of the dead bodies have been improperly proved in the case, in absence of the examination of the I.O., or the proof thereof by any formal witnesses. It is also submitted that non-examination of the Investigating Officer has caused serious prejudice to the defence. It is also submitted by learned amicus curie for the appellant that no motive has been proved by the prosecution. It is further submitted that even though it is stated in the fardbeyan that upon the alarm raised by the informant several persons assembled at the place of occurrence, but no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution so as to prove at least the presence of the accused in the village, and in the facts of this case, the accused was entitled at least to the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the case has been proved by the evidence of eyewitness and injured P.W.-3 Bati Devi, who is none else than own sister of accused. She has fully supported the prosecution case stating that it was this accused, who had assaulted the deceased. The prosecution case is also supported by another eyewitness P.W.-2 Lodero Munda, who is nephew of the deceased and he has also fully supported the prosecution case. The ocular evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. The prosecution case is also supported by another eyewitness P.W.-2 Lodero Munda, who is nephew of the deceased and he has also fully supported the prosecution case. The ocular evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutta and the post-mortem report of Lodero Munda proved by him as Exhibit-2 and the post-mortem report of the other deceased and the injury report of the injured, formally proved by him as Exhibit-3 and 4 respectively. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 13. Having heard learned counsels for both the parties and upon going through the record, we find that even if we keep aside the evidence of other material witnesses for a moment, the evidence of P.W.-3 Bati Kumari, who is own sister of accused and also injured in the occurrence, fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutta and the post-mortem report of Lodero Munda proved by him as Exhibit-2, are sufficient to prove the prosecution case. P.W.-3 Bati Kumari has fully supported the prosecution case stating that on the date of occurrence, the accused came and after taking meal, he took sabbal and assaulted her uncle and aunt, with whom she was living from childhood, causing their death at the spot. When she went to save them, she was also assaulted and injured. Though her injury report has been formally proved by P.W.-5 Dr. Pawan Kumar Dutta, but she has also shown the scar mark of the wound to the Court. P.W.-2 Lodero Munda has also supported the case, as eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that his house is adjacent to the house of the deceased and P.W.-4 Hindu Munda, the father of P.W.-2 Lodero Munda, has also stated that when upon hearing the alarm raised, he came out and he saw the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. He saw the dead bodies of the deceased and he saw the informant injured. The evidence of P.W.-3 Bati Kumari inspires confidence, also because of the fact that she has supported the prosecution case against her interest, in view of the fact that her own brother was to be convicted. He saw the dead bodies of the deceased and he saw the informant injured. The evidence of P.W.-3 Bati Kumari inspires confidence, also because of the fact that she has supported the prosecution case against her interest, in view of the fact that her own brother was to be convicted. In spite of this fact, she has fully supported the prosecution case stating that it was her brother, who had committed the murder of both the deceased and assaulted and injured her also. Her evidence is absolutely unshaken even in her cross-examination. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the sole accused Ramu Pahan has been rightly convicted and sentenced for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence, worth interference by this Court. All the materials were there on record to try the accused for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code also, but it appears that inadvertently, the accused was not tried and convicted for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 11.7.2007 and Order of sentence dated 12.7.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Fast Track Court, Khunti, in S.T. No. 558 of 2003, convicting and sentencing the sole appellant Ramu Pahan for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The accused is already in custody undergoing the sentence. 15. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been ably assisted by Sri Yogesh Modi, learned amicus curiae. We direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curie. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, for the needful. 16. There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the LCR be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with the copy of this Judgment.