Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1783 (JHR)

Hari Shankar Dehuri v. State Of Jharkhand

2018-08-08

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2006 and Order of sentence dated 09.03.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2004, whereby, the sole accused 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 R.I. for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Jyoti Shree Dehuri, the wife of the deceased Jitan Dehuri, recorded on 08.03.2004 at 09:45 P.M., near her house, situated in village Pathri, P.S. Baharagora, District East Singhbhum, wherein, she has stated that about five years ago she was married to the deceased at Rourkela, where her husband was working in a medical shop. About two years ago her father-in-law died, and the family members were residing at Rourkela. About 4 to 5 months ago, her husband came back to the ancestral village Pathri, and started living there and about 2 to 3 months earlier, he also called her and they were living in the house of their uncle Late Nimai Dehuri. Prior to that, her husband was living in the house of his uncle Hari Shankar Dehuri, the present accused, as it was a joint family, but he was asked to leave the house and thereafter they were living in the house of Late Nimai Dehuri. Her husband wanted to build a house on the nearby vacant land, but it was not acceptable to her uncle-in-law Hari Shankar, as he was afraid of partition in the property and he was insisting them to go back to the Rourkela. In the previous night, her husband had gone to work in a brick kiln and on 08.03.2004 in the morning, there was a quarrel between Hari Shankar and her aunt-in-law Kamla Dehuri, and he was insisting to turn out the informant from the house and also to throw their belongings. She sent the information to her husband and her husband came and he was going to ask Kishan Dehuri, her brother-in-law, about the occurrence. She sent the information to her husband and her husband came and he was going to ask Kishan Dehuri, her brother-in-law, about the occurrence. In the meantime at about 08:30 A.M., the accused Hari Shankar came armed with a sword abusing her husband, and pierced the sword in the chest of her husband, due to which her husband fell down and died at the spot. Claiming that the accused had committed the murder of her husband, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Baharagora P.S. Case No. 16 of 2004, corresponding to G.R. No. 94 of 2004, was instituted against the sole accused, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. 4. Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the 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. In course of trial, nine witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the I.O., and the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. 5. P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri is the informant of the case and the wife of the deceased. She has supported the case as an eye-witness to the occurrence, stating that the occurrence had taken place at about 08:00 A.M. on 08.03.2004. She was living with her husband in the village and previously they were living in the house of the accused, who is the uncle of the deceased, but since he was not allowed to live in his house and her husband wanted to build a house to live in the village, they shifted to the house of another uncle Nimai Chandra Dehuri and they had also started building their house. This was not acceptable to the accused Hari Shankar Dehuri, and he used to abuse them. On 08.03.2004 she had a quarrel with her aunt-in-law Kamli Dehuri. Her husband was not there in the house, and he had gone to work in the brick kiln. At the behest of Hari Shankar Dehuri, the belongings of the informant were also thrown out of the house. On 08.03.2004 she had a quarrel with her aunt-in-law Kamli Dehuri. Her husband was not there in the house, and he had gone to work in the brick kiln. At the behest of Hari Shankar Dehuri, the belongings of the informant were also thrown out of the house. When her husband came he wanted to enquire about the occurrence from her brother-in-law Kishan Dehuri, who was near a pond. Her husband went there and when he was returning back, the accused Hari Shankar Dehuri, who was armed with a sword and was abusing her husband in filthy languages, pierced the sword in the chest of her husband. Her husband fell down and Hari Shankar Dehuri fled away. After five to seven minutes, her husband died at the spot. This witness was crying at the same place, when the police arrived and recorded her fardbeyan, upon which she had put her signature, which on her identification, was marked Ext.1. She has also stated that the police had recovered a blood stained sword from the house of the accused and had prepared the seizure list, on which also she had put her signature and the accused had also put his signature on that. She has identified both the signatures which were marked Exts. 2/1 and 2/2 respectively. She has also stated that the inquest report of the dead body of her husband was prepared on which also she had put her signature, which she has identified and the same was marked Ext.3. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination she has stated that she was living at Rourkela and her husband was working in a medical store and her in-laws were also staying at Rourkela. After five years of her marriage, she had come to the ancestral village of her in-laws for the first time after the marriage, after the death of her father-in-law at Rourkela. Her mother-in-law and other family members were staying at Rourkela itself. After five years of her marriage, she had come to the ancestral village of her in-laws for the first time after the marriage, after the death of her father-in-law at Rourkela. Her mother-in-law and other family members were staying at Rourkela itself. She has given the details of the boundary of the house and she has stated that when she came to Pathri village, she lived in the house of the appellant for about one month and thereafter he was demanding money from her husband and also due to the fact that her husband intended to live in the village itself after building the house, there was difference between them for which there were some quarrels also. She has stated that she had not filed any suit for partition of the property, but there was a panchayati. She has stated that her statement was recorded by the police near the dead body and the police had also seized the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence, as also the clothes of her husband. In the previous night her husband had gone to work in a brick kiln and in the morning he had sent a girl to inform her husband about the quarrel and thereafter her husband came in about five to ten minutes. Her husband had gone to enquire about the same from Kishan Dehuri, who was near the pond. She has also stated that her belongings, which were thrown out of the house, were also seized by the police, but no seizure list was prepared. She has stated that sword was about 2-3 feet long and 2-3 inches wide. The accused had made only one assault on her husband and had pierced the sword in his chest. Her husband tried to save himself by holding the hands and she also tried to save her husband. She has denied the suggestion to have given false evidence. 6. P.W.-1 Malti Giri and P.W.-2 Khakni Mahakul have stated that upon noise they came out of the house and saw the accused Hari Shankar Dehuri, going towards his house with a blood stained sword. They also went to the place of occurrence and they saw the dead body of the deceased. There is nothing of much importance in their cross-examinations. 7. They also went to the place of occurrence and they saw the dead body of the deceased. There is nothing of much importance in their cross-examinations. 7. P.W.-4 Abhijit Dehuri, P.W.-5 Arun Bera and P.W.-7 Purno Mahakur, are the hearsay witnesses, who had reached the place after the occurrence, and had seen the dead body of the deceased with the bleeding injury and they were informed at the place of occurrence that this accused had assaulted the deceased. P.W.-4 Abhijit Dehuri has also stated that thereafter he came to the house of the accused and saw him washing the sword. There is nothing of much importance in their cross-examinations also. 8. P.W.-6 Balak Nayak is the Chowkidar, who is also a hearsay witness to the occurrence, and has stated that he had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence and he was also informed about the occurrence. He has also stated that a sword was seized from the house of the accused and the seizure-list was prepared, on which he has proved his signature and the same was marked Ext.2/3. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that the accused himself had handed over the sword to the police. He has also stated that he had seen the bleeding injury on the dead body of the deceased. He has also stated in his cross-examination that no one else had signed the seizure-list in his presence. 9. P.W.-8 is Dr. Lallan Choudhary, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 09.03.2004 and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body :- (A). Penetrating wound of size 4.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x chest cavity deep 6 c.m. below the neck collar left side of chest upper part (cartilaginous area) (B). Abrasions :- i. Multiple abrasions over outer border of right forearm and hand. ii. 4 c.m. x 2 c.m. over left cubital region outer aspect. (C). Internal- Chest and Abdomen:- i. Left side 3rd rib cut 4.5 c.m. x 2 c.m. including 2nd intercostal space. ii. Left lung border cut 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. iii. Pericardium pierced. Pericardial sac full of blood and clot. iv. Superior vena cava pierced 3 c.m. v. Chest cavity contained two liters of blood. This witness has stated that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock. ii. Left lung border cut 3 c.m. x 2 c.m. iii. Pericardium pierced. Pericardial sac full of blood and clot. iv. Superior vena cava pierced 3 c.m. v. Chest cavity contained two liters of blood. This witness has stated that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock. The injury (A) was caused by sharp edged heavy weapon and injuries (B) were caused by hard and blunt object. He had identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.4. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that after receiving the aforesaid injury, a person can remain alive for half to one hour. 10. P.W.-9 is Anjani Kumar, the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 08.03.2004 he was posted as Officer-Incharge at Bahragora Police Station. He had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant Jyoti Shree Dehuri and took over the charge of investigation. He has proved the fardbeyan, which was marked Ext.1/1. He has also proved the formal F.I.R., which was marked Ext.5. He has stated that he had prepared the inquest report of the dead body which also he has proved and the same was marked Ext.3/1. This witness has stated that after preparing the inquest report, he had arrested Hari Shankar Dehuri and on his pointing out, he recovered the blood stained sword, which was the weapon of offence, from the house of the accused, and he prepared the seizure list, a copy of which was given to the accused also. He has proved the seizure list, which was marked Ext.2/4. He has also produced the sword in the Court which was marked as material Ext.-I. He has stated that he sent the dead body for the post-mortem examination. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, which is located at a distance of about 30 yards from the house of the informant and near a pond, which was a vacant land. He also prepared a sketch map which he has proved and the same was marked Ext.6. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. He has stated that with the permission of the A.C.J.M., he sent the seized sword to the Forensic Science Laboratory and he also received the F.S.L. report, and has submitted it in the Court, which was available on the record. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. He has stated that with the permission of the A.C.J.M., he sent the seized sword to the Forensic Science Laboratory and he also received the F.S.L. report, and has submitted it in the Court, which was available on the record. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had reached the place of occurrence upon an information that one person was murdered at village Pathri, but the same is not mentioned in the case diary. He had not seized the clothes of the accused as it was not blood stained. He had not found any sign of quarrel at the place of occurrence, but had found the blood stains at the place of occurrence, which he had not seized. He has also stated that the accused himself had informed him that he had kept the sword in his own house, by which the offence was committed, which itself shows that the accused had accepted his guilt. He had not made any investigation about the land dispute between the parties or about any panchayati for the same. He had also not recorded the statement of Kamla Devi, as she did not want to give any statement against the accused. He had not made any investigation regarding the character of the informant. He had recovered the sword from inside the house, upon the pointing out by the accused. He has also stated that the family of both the sides was a joint family and their house is having a common courtyard, but their rooms are separate. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. The F.S.L. report was marked as Ext.8 in the case, which shows that blood was found on the sword. 12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offence as aforesaid. 13. 12. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offence as aforesaid. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant 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, as the conviction and sentence of the appellant is based only on single eye witness, P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri, and in view of the admitted enmity with her, her evidence could not be fully relied upon. All other witnesses are only hearsay witnesses to the occurrence. Learned counsel also submitted that the motive for the offence is also not properly proved in the case and the manner of occurrence shows that at the time of assault, the accused must have soiled his clothes also, by the blood of the deceased, but no blood stained cloth of the accused was found by the I.O. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in the facts of this case, basing the conviction of the accused on the evidence of sole eye witness was not proper, and in any view of the matter, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 14. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri is the wife of the deceased and she is the eye witness to the occurrence. She has fully supported the prosecution case stating that it was this accused who had assaulted her husband by sword piercing the sword in his chest. The other witnesses, namely, P.W.-1 Malti Giri and P.W.-2 Khukni Mahakul had seen the accused going towards his house with the blood stained sword and they had also seen the dead body of the deceased. Other witnesses P.W.-4 Abhijit Deohri, P.W.-5 Arun Bera, P.W.-6 Balak Nayak and P.W.-7 Purno Mahakur are also the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, who had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, and had seen the dead body with bleeding injury and they were also informed about the occurrence. Other witnesses P.W.-4 Abhijit Deohri, P.W.-5 Arun Bera, P.W.-6 Balak Nayak and P.W.-7 Purno Mahakur are also the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence, who had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, and had seen the dead body with bleeding injury and they were also informed about the occurrence. Out of these witnesses, P.W.-4 Abhijit Deohri also went to the house of the accused and saw the accused washing the sword. Learned counsel submitted that the said sword was also seized in the presence of the Chowkidar P.W.-6 Balak Nayak. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Lallan Choudhary, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.4, which clearly shows that there was a piercing wound on the chest of the deceased with the underlying injuries in the internal organs of the deceased, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Learned counsel also submitted that the evidence of the I.O., shows that it was on the pointing out of this accused that the blood stained sword was recovered from his house. It is submitted by learned counsel that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below. 15. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri, the wife of the deceased, as an eye witness to the occurrence, stating that for the quarrels which were going on, as the deceased wanted to live in his ancestral village, which was being objected by his own uncle, i.e., the present accused, he had assaulted the deceased by sword piercing the same in the chest of the deceased, causing his death at the spot. This evidence is fully corroborated by the witnesses P.W.-1 Malti Giri and P.W.-2 Khukni Mahakul, who had seen this accused fleeing away towards his house, with the blood stained sword in his hand, and they had also seen the dead body of the deceased. This evidence is fully corroborated by the witnesses P.W.-1 Malti Giri and P.W.-2 Khukni Mahakul, who had seen this accused fleeing away towards his house, with the blood stained sword in his hand, and they had also seen the dead body of the deceased. The other material witnesses are the hearsay witnesses who had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence, and they had seen the dead body of the deceased and were informed about the occurrence. Upon getting the information at the place of occurrence, P.W.-4 Abhijit Deohri rushed towards the house of the accused and also found him washing the sword. P.W.-6 Balak Nayak has supported the fact that the sword was recovered in his presence by the police, upon the pointing out by the accused himself, and this fact also is supported by the informant P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri. The I.O. has stated in his evidence that after the occurrence he arrested the accused and on his pointing out, the blood stained sword was recovered from inside his house. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-8 Dr. Lallan Choudhary and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.4, which clearly shows that there was one penetrating wound on the upper part of the chest, below the neck, causing internal injuries, i.e., pericardium was pierced and the pericardium sac was full of blood and clots. The chest cavity was also full of blood. The lung was also found cut, after cutting the 3rd rib of the left side. The Doctor has also stated that after receiving such injuries, one would die within one hour. The F.S.L. report proved as Ext.8 in the case, shows that blood was found on the sword. The motive behind the occurrence is also proved in the case as the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that the accused Hari Shankar Dehuri was objecting the deceased to settle in the village, fearing the partition in the property. The F.S.L. report proved as Ext.8 in the case, shows that blood was found on the sword. The motive behind the occurrence is also proved in the case as the occurrence had taken place due to the fact that the accused Hari Shankar Dehuri was objecting the deceased to settle in the village, fearing the partition in the property. We are of the considered view that even if the motive was not proved in the case, in the facts of this case, as the case is fully supported by the eye witness to the occurrence, who is the wife of the deceased, and a natural witness to the occurrence, and whose evidence appears to be trustworthy in all respects, the proving of the motive behind the occurrence becomes immaterial. We find that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts and there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth any interference by this Court. 16. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 07.03.2006 and Order of sentence dated 09.03.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, in Sessions Trial No. 305 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellant Hari Shankar Dehuri, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody, undergoing the sentence. 17. Before parting with this Judgment, we find that P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri is the victim of the crime, being the widow of the deceased. She has lost her husband due to the offence committed by the accused in this case. We are of the considered view that she is entitled to be adequately compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to take appropriate steps in this regard, in consultation with the Secretary of the concerned DLSA, so that P.W.-3 Jyoti Shree Dehuri may be given due compensation at an early date. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 18. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful. 18. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment.