Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 169 (JHR)

Lade Turi v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-01-18

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.05.1993, passed by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.32 of 1991, whereby, both the appellants have been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, these appellants have been sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the F.I.R. lodged at Palkot P.S. by Buda Turi, the brother of the deceased Bharthu Turi, on 15.05.1990 at about 06:30 A.M., in the morning, wherein it is stated that on the previous evening at about 07:00 P.M., the informant, along with his brothers Phiru Turi, Bharthu Turi and wife of Bharthu Turi, namely, Bandhani Turin were talking among themselves in front of their house as to why bamboo was put in their land by the family members of their uncle. This talk was overheard by Butna Turi, the nephew of the informant. He came out of his house with a tangi and assaulted Bharthu Turi. Bharthu Turi tried to save himself by his hand due to which he was injured in his hand. In the meantime, Lade Turi, the uncle of Butna Turi also came there armed with a balua and he assaulted Bharthu Turi, causing injuries on his head and mouth, whereupon Bharthu Turi fell down. The informant and other family members ran to their house out of fear, and when Butna Turi and Lade Turi went away, they came out from their house and saw Bharthu Turi dead, with injuries on his head and mouth. In the night, the chaukidar was informed about the occurrence and thereafter in the morning, the informant went with the chaukidar to the Police Station, where the F.I.R. was lodged. It is stated in the F.I.R. that the occurrence had taken place due to the land dispute between the parties. On the basis of the F.I.R., Palkot P.S. Case No.23 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. 314 of 1990, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. On the basis of the F.I.R., Palkot P.S. Case No.23 of 1990, corresponding to G.R. 314 of 1990, was instituted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused persons 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, charge was framed against both the accused for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons'' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined ten witnesses. The main I.O. has not been examined and as such, the formal F.I.R. was proved by a formal witness P.W.-1 Karan Dayal Khadia and the same was marked Ext. 1. P.W.-10 Bal Krishna Singh is another formal witness, who has proved some part of the case diary, which was marked Ext.3 and the inquest report, which was marked Ext.4. P.W.-9 Raj Narain Singh is the Police Officer, who had only submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 5. P.W.-3 Bishram Turi, though has stated that he had seen the dead body, but has turned hostile, and similarly P.W.-4 Sukra Turi has come to depose that he had only seen the dead body. These witnesses have stated nothing against the accused persons. 6. P.W.-7 Alexin Kero is the chaukidar who was informed about the occurrence by the informant and he had accompanied the informant to the Police Station, where the F.I.R. was lodged. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he has no knowledge about the occurrence. 7. The main evidence against the accused appellants are the three witnesses, who are P.W.-2 Phiru Turi the brother of the deceased, P.W.-5 Buda Turi, the informant and the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, the wife of the deceased and these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 7. The main evidence against the accused appellants are the three witnesses, who are P.W.-2 Phiru Turi the brother of the deceased, P.W.-5 Buda Turi, the informant and the brother of the deceased, and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, the wife of the deceased and these witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.-5 Buda Turi, who is the informant in the case, has stated that the occurrence had taken place about two years ago, on a Monday at about 07:00 P.M. At the time of occurrence, he along with his deceased brother Bharthu Turi, his brother Phiru Turi and the wife of Bharthu Turi, namely, Bandhani Turin were talking among themselves in front of their house about the fact that their agnates had put bamboo on their land. In the meantime, Butna Turi came out with tangi and assaulted Bharthu, which assault was prevented by Bharthu by his hand, due to which he sustained injury in his hand also. In the meantime, Lade Turi came armed with balua and assaulted Bharthu on his head and mouth, due to which Bharthu fell down sustaining bleeding injuries. The informant and other family members present there ran to their house and when after sometime they returned back, they saw that Butna Turi and Lade Turi had fled away and his brother Bharthu was lying dead. This witness has also stated that he had informed the chaukidar about the occurrence, and in the morning he had gone to the Police Station along with the chaukidar and had lodged the F.I.R. on which, he had put his thumb impression. He had identified both the accused in the Court. The other two eye-witnesses, namely, P.W.-2 Phiru Turi and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin have also supported the prosecution case as the eye-witnesses, and in the same manner as stated by P.W.-5 Buda Turi. Though all these witnesses were put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. No suggestion was given to these witnesses about any contrary statement given by them before the police. 8. P.W.-6 Dr. Though all these witnesses were put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. No suggestion was given to these witnesses about any contrary statement given by them before the police. 8. P.W.-6 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.05.1990 at 01:00 P.M. and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (1) Incised wound over left side of face extending from left ala of nose to left temporal region 2" above the left ear. Size of wound 8" x 3"x bone deep. (2) Fracture of cheek bone. (3) Fracture of temporal bone. (4) Fracture of frontal bone. (5) Fracture of left maxillary bone. (6) Laceration of left temporal and frontal lobe at brain. This witness has stated that all the above injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by sharp weapon, such as balua, tangi etc. He has stated that injuries were all grievous in nature and were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature, singly or jointly. This witness has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.2. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that all the above injuries had been caused by one single blow only. 9. The statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the accused have denied the evidence against them. The defence has also examined one witness, D.W.-1 Banda Pahan, who has stated that he was the Sarpanch of the village and there was a Panchayati between the informant and his deceased brother Bharthu Turi, as the informant had threatened his brother, and in the Panchayati, he had sought forgiveness from his brother, for which a document was also prepared. He has proved the document and his signature on the same, which were proved as Ext. A and A/1 respectively. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the I.O. has not been examined in the case which has caused prejudice to the defence. A and A/1 respectively. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, in as much as, the I.O. has not been examined in the case which has caused prejudice to the defence. Learned counsel also submitted that the case is supported only by P.W.-2 Phiru Turi, P.W.-5 Buda Turi and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, who are the brothers and wife of the deceased, and as such they are highly interested witnesses, and in view of the admitted land dispute between the parties, the false implication of the accused appellants cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, it is a fit case in which the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by the eye-witnesses P.W.-2 Phiru Turi, P.W.-5 Buda Turi and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, giving the manner of occurrence. It is submitted that there is no contradiction or discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses and all these three witnesses have stated that while the informant, his brothers and bhabhi were talking together in front of their house, the accused Butna Turi came with tangi and assaulted the deceased Bharthu Turi by tangi, which was prevented by the deceased by his hand and Lade Turi also came armed with balua and assaulted the deceased on his head and mouth due to which the deceased fell down. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad, who has proved the ante-mortem injuries upon head and face of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause the death in ordinary course, singly or jointly. Learned counsel for the State accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-2 Phiru Turi, P.W.-5 Buda Turi, the informant and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, the wife of the deceased as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. 12. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-2 Phiru Turi, P.W.-5 Buda Turi, the informant and P.W.-8 Smt. Bandhani Turin, the wife of the deceased as eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Though these witnesses have been subjected to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. Though it is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that these witnesses are highly interested witnesses, but the fact remains that the occurrence had taken place in a village, in front of the house of these witnesses, at about 07:00 P.M., in the evening, and no one else was present at the place of occurrence, except the accused persons and these witnesses. These witnesses, being the close family members, are only the natural witnesses to the occurrence and their evidence cannot be discarded solely for the reason that they are interested witnesses. The only thing that is required to be done, is to consider their evidence with caution and care. The fact remains that all these three witnesses have stood the test of cross-examination very well and there is nothing in their cross-examination to discredit their testimony. It is also apparent from the record that though the I.O. has not been examined in the case, but the non-examination of the I.O. has not caused any prejudice to the defence, as no suggestion was given to these witnesses about any contrary statement given by them before the police. As such, the defence cannot take the plea that they were prejudiced due to non-examination of the I.O. The evidence of these eye-witnesses to the occurrence, is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-6 Dr. Mani Bhushan Prasad and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit 2. 13. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.05.1993, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Gumla, in S.T. No.32 of 1991, convicting and sentencing the appellants Lade Turi and Butna Turi for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellants are on bail and their bails are hereby, cancelled. The appellants are on bail and their bails are hereby, cancelled. Both the appellants are directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Court below is also directed to issue process forthwith compelling the surrender / production of the appellants for serving out the sentence. 14. 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 the copy of this Judgment.