Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2084 (JHR)

Om Prakash Mahato @ Petu v. State of Jharkhand

2018-09-17

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : 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 impugned Judgment of conviction dated 06th August, 2005 and Order of sentence dated 08th August, 2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Ghatsila, in S.T. No. 60 of 2004, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to life imprisonment for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of informant Smt. Lakhi Devi, the wife of the deceased Bir Kishore Mahto, recorded on 11.03.2003 at about 07:00 A.M., in the morning at village Asanbani, P.S. Gurabanda, District East Singhbhum, at the house of her brother-in-law Nukul Mahto, where it is stated that she was staying with her husband for the last 6 to 7 months, as her husband was plying a tractor. She has stated that in the previous night, the family members were sleeping in the house, and in the early morning between 3:30 to 04:00 A.M. her sister Dropadi Mahto went out to urinate and when she returned back, her husband and she also went out to urinate. Her husband was urinating near the tractor, when the accused Om Prakash Mahato, who was concealing himself near the tractor, came out and assaulted her husband by knife. Her husband screamed and raised the alarm that the accused was assaulting him by knife, and by the time the informant and the family members could reach there, the accused fled away. Her husband had sustained bleeding injuries on his chest and he was uttering that the accused Petu had assaulted him by knife. He was profusely bleeding and was brought in the house and made to lie on a cot, but after some time he died. It is stated in the fardbeyan that the accused is the husband of Nirupma Mahto, the daughter of her sister Dropadi Mahto and he was in the habit of assaulting his wife. About 20 to 25 days ago also, he had assaulted his wife and she had come to her parents’ place. It is stated in the fardbeyan that the accused is the husband of Nirupma Mahto, the daughter of her sister Dropadi Mahto and he was in the habit of assaulting his wife. About 20 to 25 days ago also, he had assaulted his wife and she had come to her parents’ place. The accused again came there and abused and assaulted his wife, whereupon, the husband of the informant had prevented him from doing so, whereupon he had also taken up quarrel with her husband and went away threatening him of dire consequences. It is stated that due to the same animosity, the accused had assaulted her husband causing his death. She has also stated that on the day the accused had taken quarrel with her husband, he had also taken away a cycle from the house, but due to the fact that the accused was a relative, the police was not informed. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Gurabanda (Bahragora) P.S. Case No. 31 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No. 99 of 2003, was instituted for the offences under Sections 302, 427 and 379 of the India Penal Code, against the sole accused, 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 pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, fourteen witnesses were examined by the prosecution, including the Doctor, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. The I.O. has not been examined in the case. 5. Out of the witnesses examined, PW-11 Netra Nand Mohanto and PW-12 Sulochana Mohanto have stated nothing about the occurrence. PW-1 Sunil Kumar Mahto and PW-7 Asutosh Mahato are only the witnesses to the inquest report, and they have proved their signatures thereon, which were marked as Exts.1 and 1/1 respectively. They have also stated nothing about the occurrence. 6. PW-9 Lakhi Mahto @ Bimla Mahto is the informant and the wife of the deceased. PW-1 Sunil Kumar Mahto and PW-7 Asutosh Mahato are only the witnesses to the inquest report, and they have proved their signatures thereon, which were marked as Exts.1 and 1/1 respectively. They have also stated nothing about the occurrence. 6. PW-9 Lakhi Mahto @ Bimla Mahto is the informant and the wife of the deceased. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place about one and half years ago, at that time she was residing at village Asanbani at the house of her brother-in-law, where her husband used to ply a tractor. She has stated that in the early morning she and her husband had went out to urinate and when her husband was urinating near the tractor, the accused Petu, who was concealing himself near the tractor, came and assaulted her husband by knife on his chest. Her husband screamed and shouted that Petu had assaulted him by knife. She also saw the accused fleeing away and on the noise, all the family members and neighbours rushed there, and they made her husband to lie on a cot. Her husband was bleeding profusely and after some time he died. She has stated that her sister’s son Basu went to inform the police, whereupon the police came and recorded her fardbeyan, whereupon she had put her signature and also her thumb impression. The other witnesses Nakul Chandra Mahto and Jagat Mahto had also put their signatures thereon as witnesses. She has identified all the signatures, which were marked Ext.3 series. The dead body of her husband was sent for post-mortem examination. She has stated that Petu is the alias name of Om Prakash Mahto, who was married to Nirupma, the daughter of her sister, and due to the quarrel between them, the wife of the accused had come to her mother’s place and she was living there. The accused also came there and he was quarreling with his wife, when her husband intervened, whereupon he had threatened her husband also and due to that animosity he had assaulted her husband. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence the other members of the family had woke up, and even though it was early morning, but people could be identified. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that at the time of occurrence the other members of the family had woke up, and even though it was early morning, but people could be identified. She has stated that she had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased, but she had seen him fleeing away with the knife, and upon the alarm raised, the other family members also came there and they had also seen the accused fleeing away. She has stated that her husband’s village is in the State of Orissa and she was living at her sister’s place for some time. She has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. 7. PW-2 Kumari Leelawati Mahto, the sister-in-law of the accused, PW-3 Basudeo Mahto, the brother-in-law of the accused, PW-4 Dropadi Mahto, the sister of the informant and mother-in-law of the accused, and PW-5 Sumitra Mahto, are all the inmates of the house, and all of them have fully supported the prosecution case stating that when they heard the screams of the deceased, who had gone near the tractor for urinating, they saw the accused fleeing away with knife. Though PW-4 Dropadi Mahto has not stated this fact in her examination-in-chief, but this fact has been taken in her cross-examination by the defence. The deceased was profusely bleeding and uttering that Petu had assaulted him by knife. All the witnesses have stated that the accused was in habit of assaulting his wife, which was objected by the deceased due to which he had assaulted the deceased. These witnesses in their cross-examination, have stated that they had not seen the accused assaulting the deceased, but they had seen him while fleeing away with the knife, and though it was early morning, but people could be identified at that time. There is nothing in the evidence of these witnesses, including of the informant, to show that any suggestion was given to them that they had made improvements upon their previous statements given before the police. 8. PW-6 Yugal Kishore Mahto and PW-10 Sudhanshu Mahto are the hearsay witnesses who, upon the alarm raised, had come to the place of occurrence and had seen the dead body, and were also informed about the occurrence. 8. PW-6 Yugal Kishore Mahto and PW-10 Sudhanshu Mahto are the hearsay witnesses who, upon the alarm raised, had come to the place of occurrence and had seen the dead body, and were also informed about the occurrence. PW-13 Sharat Chandra Mahanto and PW-14 Safa Mahanto are the father and mother respectively, of the deceased, who are the residents of the State of Orissa and they are only the hearsay witnesses, stating that they were informed about the murder of their son on telephone, informing that this accused had assaulted him by knife. 9. PW-8 is Dr. Yogendra Nath, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 11.03.2003 and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- Stab wound 2 cm x 1 cm x chest cavity over pericardial area of the chest front 5 cm inside left nipple and at the same level, the weapon entered into the chest cavity through 4th inter-space, cutting the ribs partially, pierced the pericardial sac and entered into the left ventricle upper part. The pericardial sac and chest cavity was full of blood. All the injuries were ante-mortem. This witness has stated that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death, and it was caused by sharp cutting-cum-pointed weapon. Death was due to haemorrhage and shock and time since death was within 12 hours. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-2. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein the accused has denied the evidence against him. No evidence, however, was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below for the offence, as aforesaid. 11. Learned amicus curiae arguing 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, in as much as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Learned amicus curiae arguing 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, in as much as, the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the time of occurrence is about 4.00 to 4.30 A.M. in the morning and it is difficult to say that at that wee hours one could identify the accused fleeing away from the place of occurrence. Learned amicus curiae also submitted that since the I.O. has not been examined in the case, the defence has been vitally prejudiced in the case, and for these reasons, even though the witnesses have supported the prosecution case, the appellant ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that the witnesses PW-2 Kumari Leelawati Mahto, PW-3 Basudeo Mahto, PW-4 Dropadi Mahto and PW-5 Sumitra Mahto, are all the inmates of the house and the in-laws' of the accused. PW-4 Dropadi Mahto is the mother-in-law of the accused and all these witnesses, and PW-9 Lakhi Mahto @ Bimla Mahto, the wife of the deceased, have fully supported the prosecution case stating that they had seen the accused fleeing away with knife upon hearing the screams of the deceased. PW-6 Yugal Kishore Mahto and PW-10 Sudhanshu Mahto are the villagers who came to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body with the injury and they were informed about the occurrence. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Yogendra Nath and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.2, who had found the stab injury on the dead body of the deceased, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted 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. 13. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted 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. 13. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by the witnesses examined by the prosecution, who were all the inmates of the house, when the occurrence had taken place. PW-9 Lakhi Mahto @ Bimla Mahto is the wife of the deceased, who was present there, and PW-2 Kumari Leelawati Mahto, the sister-in-law of the accused, PW-3 Basudeo Mahto, the brother-in-law of the accused and even PW-4 Dropadi Mahto, the mother-in-law of the accused and PW-5 Sumitra Mahto, have fully supported the prosecution case, stating that they were present in the house, and upon the screams of the deceased, they rushed towards the deceased and saw the accused fleeing away with knife. The deceased was having the injury on his chest and he was profusely bleeding, and uttering that this accused had assaulted him with the knife, and soon thereafter, the deceased died. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence of PW-8 Dr. Yogendra Nath and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-2, which clearly show that the stab injury was there on the chest of the deceased, cutting the ribs partially, and puncturing the heart, which was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death of the deceased. Though it is argued that the I.O. has not been examined in the case, but we find from the evidence on record that no suggestion was given to any witness, that he or she had made any improvement in their statement given before the police and as such, we find that no prejudice whatsoever could be caused to the defence due to non-examination of the I.O. in the case. The witnesses are very closely related to the accused, and there can be no difficulty in identifying the accused, even in the wee hours, when the occurrence had taken place. The fact that even such close relatives of the accused have fully supported the prosecution case, shows that the truthfulness of the witnesses. The witnesses are very closely related to the accused, and there can be no difficulty in identifying the accused, even in the wee hours, when the occurrence had taken place. The fact that even such close relatives of the accused have fully supported the prosecution case, shows that the truthfulness of the witnesses. Indeed all these witnesses have been subjected to lengthy cross-examinations, but nothing could be taken by the defence to discredit their testimony. We find and hold 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. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 06th August, 2005 and Order of sentence dated 08th August, 2005, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Ghatsila, in S.T. No. 60 of 2004, convicting and sentencing the appellant Om Prakash Mahato @ Petu, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant is already in custody undergoing the sentence. 15. We find from the record that PW-9 Lakhi Mahto @ Bimla Mahto, is the victim of the crime, being the wife of the deceased, who has lost her husband. We are of the considered view that she should 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 concerned DLSA, so that adequate compensation is paid to this victim 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. 16. Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by Miss Khushboo Kataruka, learned amicus curiae appointed by this Court for the appellant. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful. 17. We accordingly, direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, to make the payment of the prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curiae. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful. 17. 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 a copy of this Judgment. Appeal dismissed.