Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 900 (JHR)

Dhanu Purti v. State Of Jharkhand

2017-06-07

ANANDA SEN, PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY

body2017
JUDGMENT Ananda Sen, J. – Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. 2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.06.2001 passed by learned Addl. Judicial Commissioner, Khunti in S.T. No.120 of 2000, arising out of Murhu P.S. Case No.30 of 1999 (G.R. No.272 of 1999), whereby and where-under, the learned trial court, having found the appellant-Dhanu Purti guilty for committing murder of the deceased-Dumchi Tiru, convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. 3. The case of the prosecution, on the basis of Fardbeyan of the informant-Purgun Tiru, is that on 12.06.1999 at about 11.00 A.M., she along with her elder sister Somari Tiru was sitting at her door and at the same time, the appellant/accused Dhanu Purti, suddenly came with Tangi (Axe) in his hand and inflicted two blows on the head of the informant''s mother-Dumchi Tiru as a result of which she fell down and died instantly and when the informant raised alarm then accused/ appellant fled away from there, after throwing the weapon. It is stated that when alarm was raised, villagers arrived there and the accused/appellant was caught on chase. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, Murhu P.S. Case No.30 of 1999 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and after investigation of the case, the police submitted charge sheet against the appellant. Thereafter, the cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Accordingly, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, has examined, as many as 09 prosecution witnesses. P.W.1- is Dr. (Mrs.) Lalita Verma. P.W.2 is Purgun Tiru (informant of this case). P.W.3 is Somari Tiru. P.W.4 is Lodo Tiru. P.W.5 is Daskan Tiru. P.W.6 is Mangra Tiru. P.W.7 is Machia Tiru. P.W.8 is Birbal Tiru and P.W.9 is Shaligram Choudhary. Out of nine witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and P.Ws. P.W.1- is Dr. (Mrs.) Lalita Verma. P.W.2 is Purgun Tiru (informant of this case). P.W.3 is Somari Tiru. P.W.4 is Lodo Tiru. P.W.5 is Daskan Tiru. P.W.6 is Mangra Tiru. P.W.7 is Machia Tiru. P.W.8 is Birbal Tiru and P.W.9 is Shaligram Choudhary. Out of nine witnesses, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are the eye witnesses of the occurrence and P.Ws. 4, 5, 7 and 8 are hearsay witnesses and P.W.9 is the formal witness and P.W.1 is the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. 7. After closure of the evidences, the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The plea of the defence is of complete denial of the allegation. 8. The learned trial court, after appreciating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased under under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and accordingly, recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that there is no motive of killing the deceased by the appellant, which, clearly indicates that the appellant had not committed the said crime. It is further submitted that most of the witnesses are highly interested witness and related to each other, therefore, their statements should be discarded. Learned counsel further argues that no one has seen this appellant entering the place of occurrence, rather every one had seen the appellant fleeing away, which suggests that this appellant was not involved in the said crime. She further states that non-examination of the police officer and non production of seized weapon are fatal for the case of the prosecution so, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and he be acquitted from the charge. 10. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and submitted that there is ample evidence of two eye witness P.W.2 and P.W.3, and rest of the hearsay witness, whose version get full corroboration from the evidence of the doctor, on the manner and place of injury with the weapon alleged. He further submitted that non-examination of police officer will not affect the merit of the case because maximum prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further stated that it is well proved case of brutal and cold blooded murder of poor old lady for no fault of her, therefore, accused/appellant must be punished. 11. On the basis of the aforesaid submission, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. The findings arrived at by the learned trial court do not require any interference by this Court. 12. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and also perused the materials available on record including L.C.R. 13. P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye the witnesses to the occurrence. Both the witnesses have confirmed their presence at the place of occurrence. Both the witnesses have clearly stated that when their mother was urinating in front of their house, this appellant gave two blows to Dumchi Tiru (deceased), by sharp cutting weapon (Axe). They stated that when they raised hulla, this appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. They further stated that P.Ws,5, 6 and 7 reached at the place of occurrence on hearing Hulla. These witnesses have clearly stated that two blows were given on the vital part of the body by the present appellant. In the cross-examination, the defence could not take any contradiction from them. 14. The Doctor has been examined as P.W.1 and Post Mortem Report has been proved as Ext.1. The Doctor has found two injuries, one on the left side of parietal bone, scalp and another on the back side of the neck. The place of injuries is corroborated with the evidence of eye witnesses, who also stated about inflicting these injuries. The Doctor also opined that the injury was caused by sharp cutting weapon, may be Tangi (Axe), which also corroborates the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3. 15. P.Ws.4 and 5 also stated that while hearing Hulla, they saw that this appellant was trying to flee away with the Tangi (Axe) in his hand, but they caught him immediately. Even their evidences are also consistent with each other and the defence could not demolish the evidence of these witnesses. 16. 2 and 3. 15. P.Ws.4 and 5 also stated that while hearing Hulla, they saw that this appellant was trying to flee away with the Tangi (Axe) in his hand, but they caught him immediately. Even their evidences are also consistent with each other and the defence could not demolish the evidence of these witnesses. 16. So far non-examination of the Investigating Officer is concerned, the defence could not substantiate as to what prejudice is caused to the defence on account of his non examination. No contradiction has also been pointed out at the time of evidence of the witnesses, who were examined. 17. So far as motive is concerned, since there are eye witness to the occurrence, it is not necessary for the prosecution to establish motive. This is not a case of circumstantial evidence where establishment of motive can play a role. So in our opinion where there is direct evidence of commission of murder, like testimony of eye witness, motive for commission of the crime is not necessary. 18. Thus, from scrutinizing the evidence of these witnesses, there remains no doubt that the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. The manner of assault, place of injury and the nature of weapon, has been proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt. 19. Accordingly, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment impugned and hence, it is affirmed and this appeal stands dismissed. Pradip Kumar Mohanty, C.J. - I agree.