Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2020 (JHR)

Duka Chatar v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-06

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 14.06.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 265 of 2005, 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 Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Dibru Chatar, the Munda of the village Gitilipi, Tola Gardisai, P.S. Jagarnathpur, District West-Singhbhum, Chaibasa, recorded on 22.7.2005, at about 3:00 P.M., wherein he has stated that on 22.7.2005 in the morning, he was informed that Chakru Chatar was murdered, whereupon he along with his Dakua Bikram Leyangi, went to the place of occurrence, and he found the dead body of Chakru Chatar in front of his house. There were head injuries on the dead body and the face was smashed. It also appeared that the deceased had been murdered by strangulation, on the village road and he was dragged to his house where the dead body was left. The People nearby informed him that in the night, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, Duka Chatar and Duka Chatar was assaulting the deceased by fists, kicks and belt. When people tried to save him, they were threatened and asked to go away, and he was informed that the deceased was strangulated to death. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Jagarnathpur P.S. Case No. 45 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 432 of 2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Duka Chatar, 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 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. 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 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. In course of trial, ten 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. The informant, Munda of the village, has not been examined in the case, and one witness P.W.-9 Dukhan Tanti was only tendered by the prosecution. 5. P.W.-3 Dr. Sudama Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 23.7.2005, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body :- External Injury:- (i) Incised wound of left side of scalp, the ear was missing. (ii) Incised wound 3” x 1/2” x bone deep over mid fore-head. (iii) Incised wound 4 “x 1/2” x bone deep on left temporal area. (iv) Incised wound 1” x 1/2” x bone deep over left eyebrow. All these injuries were anti-mortem in nature. On dissection:- Head & Neck- Intracranial cavity was full of blood and blood clot. Frontal and temporal cerebral cortex was lacerated. No subcutaneous hemorrhage in neck, tracheal rings were intact. Thorax – Fracture of 3rd to 7th ribs on both sides with subcutaneous hemorrhage. Pleural cavity was full of blood and blood clot. Mid portion of lungs lacerated. He has stated that the cause of death was head injury and the injury of chest, causing hemorrhage and shock. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-1. 6. P.W.-1 Ram Chatar, P.W.-7 Tursi Das and P.W.-8 Govind Chatar, are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and these witnesses have stated that they had seen the accused, assaulting the deceased. P.W.-1 Ram Chatar has stated that the accused was assaulting the deceased by fists and belt, whereas P.W.-7 Tulsi Das and P.W.-8 Govind Chatar have stated that they saw the accused assaulting by belt only. 7. P.W.-4 Susmohan Laguri has also supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that he had seen the accused, assaulting by belt and knife. 7. P.W.-4 Susmohan Laguri has also supported the case as eyewitness to the occurrence, stating that he had seen the accused, assaulting by belt and knife. He is also a witness to the inquest report of the dead body and the seizure list of a piece of belt from the house of the accused, and he has proved his signatures on both these documents, which were marked as Exhibits 2 & 2/1 respectively. In his cross-examination, however, this witness has clearly stated that he had not given the statement before the Police that he had seen the accused, assaulting by knife also. 8. P.W.-5 Muni Chatar is not the eyewitness to the occurrence of murder, but she had reached the place of occurrence upon hearing the noise. She has stated that by that time, the accused had already assaulted the deceased and he was going away, who told her that he had committed the murder and asked her to go away. She has stated that she saw the accused armed with knife and belt. 9. P.W.-2 Duka Chatar and P.W.-6 Shiv Narayan Chatar are the sons of the deceased, and they are only the hearsay witnesses, who had reached the place of occurrence on the next day. P.W.-6 Shiv Narayan Chatar has stated that he was informed that his father was also strangulated to death by the accused. 10. P.W.-10 Maheshwar Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 22.7.2005, he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Jagarnathpur Police Station. At about 2:00 P.M., there was a rumor that someone was murdered in village Gitilipi. He made the Sanha entry about the information and proceeded towards the place of occurrence along with the police party. He reached village Gitilipi, Tola Gardisai, and recorded the fardbeyan of the village Munda Dibru Chatar. He has proved the fardbeyan which was marked as Exhibit-3. He had recorded the re-statement of the informant and he made inspection of the place of occurrence, which was the village road, where he was informed that the deceased was assaulted. He found bloodstains there and there was a dragging mark of the dead body from the village road up to the courtyard of the deceased, where the dead body was kept. He found bloodstains in the courtyard also. He prepared the inquest report, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-4. He found bloodstains there and there was a dragging mark of the dead body from the village road up to the courtyard of the deceased, where the dead body was kept. He found bloodstains in the courtyard also. He prepared the inquest report, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-4. He also seized the blood stained soil, and prepared the seizure list, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-5. He has stated that he took the confessional statement of the accused and on the basis of the confessional statement, a broken piece of rexene belt was recovered from the house. He has proved the seizure list of the piece of belt, which was marked Exhibit-5/1. This witness has not proved the confessional statement of the accused. He has also proved the formal FIR which was marked Exhibit-6, and has stated that after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in this case. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation. 11. 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 accused has been found guilty and convicted by the Trial Court below, for the offence as aforesaid. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, in as much as, P.W.-1 Ram Chatar, P.W.-7 Tursi Das and P.W.-8 Govind Chatar, are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and in their evidence there is nothing to show that the accused had assaulted the deceased by knife, but the evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Sudama Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, clearly show that there were four incised wounds on the dead body, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon, and all these injuries remained unexplained by the prosecution. It is also submitted that there are even other contradictions in evidence of the witnesses and as such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. It is also submitted that there are even other contradictions in evidence of the witnesses and as such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the eyewitnesses to the occurrence have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that this accused had assaulted the deceased to death. P.W.-4 Susmohan Laguri has stated that he had seen the accused, assaulting the deceased by belt and knife. P.W.-5 Muni Chatar has stated that she had seen the accused armed with knife and belt. It is submitted that their ocular evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Sudama Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1. As such there is no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court, and this appeal is fit to be dismissed. 14. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that none of the eyewitnesses who had seen the accused assaulting the deceased, have stated that the accused had assaulted the deceased by knife also. Though P.W.-4 Susmohan Laguri, has stated that he had seen the accused assaulting by knife also, but he has admitted in his cross-examination that he had not given any such statement before the police. In the interest of justice, we have looked into the case diary, and the statement of this witness recorded by the police shows that he had claimed to have seen the accused assaulting the deceased by kicks, fists and belt only. As such, it is apparent that he has made improvement over his earlier statement given before the police. Though the I.O. has not proved the confessional statement of the accused, but we find that in the confessional statement allegedly made by the accused, which is recorded in the case diary, there is no confession to have assaulted the deceased by knife. It is only confessed that he had assaulted the deceased by fists, kicks and belt, and had strangulated him, and on the basis of the said confessional statement, the piece of belt was shown to be recovered. 15. It is only confessed that he had assaulted the deceased by fists, kicks and belt, and had strangulated him, and on the basis of the said confessional statement, the piece of belt was shown to be recovered. 15. Though there is no legal evidence against the accused to have assaulted the deceased by knife, but the evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Sudama Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-1, clearly show that there were four incised wounds on the dead body, which were caused by sharp cutting weapon and all these injuries remained unexplained by the prosecution. Though in the FIR it is alleged that it appeared that the deceased was strangulated to death, and P.W.-6 Shiv Narayan Chatar has also stated that he was informed that his father was also strangulated to death by the accused, and this fact also appears in the alleged confessional statement in the case diary, but the evidence of P.W.-3 Dr. Sudama Prasad, and the post-mortem report proved by him show that no evidence of strangulation was found on the dead body. It appears that due to these discrepancies, the prosecution has chosen not to prove the confessional statement of the accused, though it is mentioned in the case diary. In our considered view, these facts make the entire prosecution case very doubtful, the benefits of which must go to the accused. As such, the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, and this is a case in which the accused was entitled to the benefits of doubt. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgement of conviction and Order of sentence dated 14.06.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West-Singhbhum, Chaibasa, in S.T. No. 265 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellant Duka Chatar, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. Consequently, the appellant is given the benefits of doubt and he is acquitted of the charge. The appellant Duka Chatar is in custody, undergoing the sentence. He is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 17. This appeal is accordingly, allowed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgement.