Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 357 (JHR)

Raghunath Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2018-02-12

B.B.MANGALMURTI, H.C.MISHRA

body2018
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24th March 2007 and Order of sentence dated 28th March 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saraikella-Kharsawan, in S.T. No. 26 of 2006, whereby, both the accused persons were found guilty and convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Sunil Singh, recorded on 16.12.2005 at 2:30 PM in his village, wherein, he has stated that his father late Chaitanya Singh had two wives. The first wife is the accused Adho Muni Singh and the accused Raghunath Singh is her son, and the second wife was Kamla Singh, the mother of the informant. It is stated that his father was having about five bighas of land, and after the death of his father, the first wife and his son were tilling the entire land, and whenever his mother demanded the share in the property, they used to quarrel and to abuse in filthy languages. It is alleged that on the previous day, i.e., on 15.12.2005, there was a quarrel between both the wives of his late father for the share in the land, whereupon, Adho Muni Singh, who is his elder mother, again started abusing his mother in filthy languages and she called her son Raghunath Singh, asking him to kill his mother, as she was always demanding the share in the property. His elder brother also came and started abusing them in filthy languages and he took the informant towards the side of the road. Thereafter, he returned and started assaulting his mother. The informant also followed him. His elder mother asked her son to kill the mother of the informant, stating that so long as she remains alive, she will always be demanding share in the property, whereupon, the accused Raghunath Singh went inside of the house, brought a tangi and assaulted his mother by tangi, due to which, his mother fell down and died at the spot. He started crying and raised the alarm, whereupon, villagers assembled and the accused fled away with tangi. He started crying and raised the alarm, whereupon, villagers assembled and the accused fled away with tangi. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Nimdih P.S. Case No.66 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1006 of 2005, 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 persons 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, 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. 5. PW-3 is Sunil Singh, who is informant and son of the deceased. This witness has stated that his elder mother’s name is Adho Muni Singh and his own mother’s name was Kamla Singh. The accused Raghunath is his elder brother and son of Adho Muni Singh, and he identified both the accused persons in the Court. He has stated that his mother was murdered on 15.12.2005 in the evening, in the lane in front of his house. This witness has stated that at the time of occurrence, there was quarrel between his mother and his elder mother as his mother was demanding share in the land of his father, as the accused persons were possessing the entire land of his father. In course of quarrel, his elder mother asked her son Raghunath to kill the mother of this witness, whereupon, Raghunath came out of the house, took him towards the road and thereafter, he returned back and started assaulting his mother. His elder mother instigated her son to kill the mother of this witness, so that the entire dispute shall come to an end, whereupon, Raghunath assaulted the mother of this witness by tangi on her head, causing her death at the spot. This witness started crying and upon hearing his cries, Dinbandhu Singh and Kamla Singh came there and he informed them about the occurrence. This witness started crying and upon hearing his cries, Dinbandhu Singh and Kamla Singh came there and he informed them about the occurrence. Police also visited the place of occurrence on the next day, and he had given his fardbeyan to the police, upon which he had put his signature, finding the same to be true. He has also stated that Gokul had also put his signature on the fardbeyan, and he has identified both the signatures, which were marked 1/5 and 1/4 respectively. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that nothing incriminating was seized in his presence. He has also stated that the accused Raghunath Singh is his elder brother, and they had five bighas of land and there was no partition of the land. He has denied the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence, and to have given false evidence. 6. PW-1 Dinbandhu Singh, PW-2 Kalyan Singh, PW-4 Nirmal Singh, PW-7 Santosh Singh and PW-8 Jalan Singh, they all have supported the case as hearsay witnesses. They have stated that Chaitanya Singh had two wives. The elder wife is Adho Muni Singh and the second wife was Kamla Singh, who has been murdered. They have stated that the occurrence had taken place on 15.12.2005 in the evening. Upon hearing the noise, they came to the place of occurrence and saw Kamla Singh dead with bleeding injury on her head. PW-4 Nirmal Singh has also stated that he saw the accused Raghunath Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence with the blood stained tangi in his hand. PW-8 Jalan Singh has also stated that he saw the accused Raghunath Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence with the tangi in his hand. All these witnesses have stated that Sunil informed that there was quarrel between the two wives of Chaitnya Singh and upon the order given by his mother Adho Muni Singh, Raghunath Singh had assaulted the deceased by tangi and had fled away. PW-1 Dinbandhu Singh is also the witness to the inquest report of the dead body and the seizure list of seizing blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He has identified his signature and the signature of Kalyan Singh on the inquest report, which were marked Exts.-1 and 1/ 1. PW-1 Dinbandhu Singh is also the witness to the inquest report of the dead body and the seizure list of seizing blood stained soil from the place of occurrence. He has identified his signature and the signature of Kalyan Singh on the inquest report, which were marked Exts.-1 and 1/ 1. He has also identified his signature and the signature of Gokul Singh on the seizure list, which were marked Exts.-1/2 and 1/3. He has also stated that there used to be quarrel between the two wives of Chaitnya Singh for the share in property, in which he used to intervene. PW-2 Kalyan Singh has also identified his signature on the inquest report, which was earlier marked Ext.-1/1, and PW-4 Nirmal Singh has also stated that both the ladies used to quarrel for share in property and on the date of occurrence also, there was quarrel between them. All these witnesses have identified the accused persons in the Court. In their cross-examination, PW-1 Dinbandhu Singh, PW-2 Kalyan Singh and PW-7 Santosh Singh have stated that they had not seen the murder being committed, rather they had seen the dead body and they had been informed about the occurrence, whereas PW-4 Nirmal Singh has stated in his cross-examination that he had seen the accused fleeing away with the blood stained tangi in his hand, but he did not try to apprehend him. 7. PW-5 Gokhul Singh and PW-6 Lakhan Singh have also stated that Kamla Singh was the mother of the informant and Adho Muni Singh is the mother of the accused Raghunath Singh. They have stated that on the date of occurrence, there was quarrel between the two ladies for the share in the property and both these witnesses had intervened in the said quarrel. PW-5 Gokhul Singh has stated that he returned back to his house and upon hearing the noise, he again came out and found the dead body of the deceased with bleeding injuries, Sunil was crying there and Raghunath was also standing there with tangi. Sunil informed him that on the order given by his elder mother, Raghunath had assaulted his mother by tangi causing her death. This witness has stated that Raghunath was having blood stained tangi in his hand and thereafter, he fled away. He has stated that both the ladies used to quarrel for property. Sunil informed him that on the order given by his elder mother, Raghunath had assaulted his mother by tangi causing her death. This witness has stated that Raghunath was having blood stained tangi in his hand and thereafter, he fled away. He has stated that both the ladies used to quarrel for property. This witness is also the witness to the seizure list of the blood stained soil and the fardbeyan, and he has identified his signatures on both these documents, which were earlier marked Exts.-1/3 and 1/4. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had not seen the murder being committed by his own eyes. PW-6 Lakhan Singh has stated that during quarrel between the two ladies, Adho Muni Singh asked her son to kill the mother of the informant. He has stated that at the time of occurrence, Sunil was also present. On the order given by Adho Muni Singh, her son Raghunath assaulted the mother of the informant by tangi on her head, causing her death at the spot and thereafter, he fled away. He has stated that he had given the same statement before the police. In his cross-examination, however, this witness has stated that he was informed about the occurrence by Sunil. 8. PW-10 is Dr. Lalan Choudhary, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.12.2005, and had found the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body:- A. Incised wound of size 11 cms x 4 cm x bone deep over left fronto parietal scalp. B. Abrasions: (i) 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm over lower lip. (ii) 1.5 cm x 4 cm over right side back of upper shoulder. (iii) 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm over lower part of right knee. C. Internal all the bones of scalp fractured into multiple pieces, nasal and maxillary bones of face fractured. Brain membrane ruptured. Brain Lacerated. This witness has stated that the cause of death was head injury, which could be caused by tangi, and the head injury was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-6. 9. PW-9 Dhananjay Singh is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on 16.12.2005, he was posted as Officer-Incharge in Nimdih police station. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-6. 9. PW-9 Dhananjay Singh is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on 16.12.2005, he was posted as Officer-Incharge in Nimdih police station. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant at the place of occurrence, which he has proved to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Ext.-2. He has proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan and the same was marked Ext.-2/1. He has also proved the formal FIR and the inquest report of the dead body, which were marked Exts.-3 and 4 respectively. He has stated that he seized the blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list, which he has also proved, and the same was marked Ext.-5. He has stated that he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He has described the place of occurrence, which is a lane, by the side of the houses of the accused and the informant. He had arrested Adho Muni Singh and the other accused had surrendered in the Court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not sent the blood stained soil for forensic examination. 10. The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them. No defence evidence was adduced in the case. On the basis of the evidence on record, both the accused persons were convicted and sentenced for the offence as aforesaid. 11. 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, as the prosecution is not able to bring home charge against the accused appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted that the enmity between the parties for share in the property is an admitted fact in the case, and the only eyewitness to the occurrence is the informant, who is the son of the deceased. Other witnesses had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence and they had only seen the dead body. They claim to be informed about the occurrence by the informant, who shall be the only beneficiary of the entire property, in case the appellants are removed from the scene. Other witnesses had reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence and they had only seen the dead body. They claim to be informed about the occurrence by the informant, who shall be the only beneficiary of the entire property, in case the appellants are removed from the scene. Learned counsel submitted that the informant is most interested witness in the case and as such, the false implication of the accused due to the admitted enmity for the property, cannot be ruled out. It has also been submitted by learned counsel that the appellant Adho Muni Singh is now an old lady and there is no allegation of assault upon her. Learned counsel submitted that none of the witnesses, except the informant, is the eyewitness to the fact that Adho Muni Singh had ordered her son to kill the deceased, rather all of them are only the hearsay witnesses on this point also. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the appellants ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the PW-3 Sunil Singh is the eyewitness to the occurrence, who is the son of the deceased and he has fully supported the prosecution case stating that on the order given by his mother Adho Muni Singh, the accused Raghunath Singh assaulted the mother of this witness by tangi, causing her death at the spot. All the other material witnesses had reached the place of occurrence upon hearing the cries of Sunil Singh and they saw the dead body with the bleeding injury on her head and they were informed about the occurrence by Sunil Singh, who was present there. The witnesses have also stated that Raghunath Singh was also there with the blood stained tangi in his hand and subsequently, he fled away, and PW-4 Nirmal singh has stated that he had seen the accused Raghunath Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence with the blood stained tangi in his hand. The witnesses have also stated that both the ladies used to quarrel for the share in the property, and they were also quarreling on the date of occurrence, soon before the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel that the ocular evidences of these witnesses are fully supported by the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. The witnesses have also stated that both the ladies used to quarrel for the share in the property, and they were also quarreling on the date of occurrence, soon before the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel that the ocular evidences of these witnesses are fully supported by the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. Lalan Choudhary and post mortem report proved by him as Ext.-6, which shows that there was incised wound on the head of the deceased, which was sufficient in the normal course of nature to cause the death and the Doctor has stated that this injury could be caused by tangi. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against the accused appellants 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 PW-3 Sunil Singh, who is informant and the son of the deceased, as also the eyewitness to the occurrence, has proved the fact beyond all doubts that in his presence, his mother was assaulted by accused Raghunath Singh upon the order given by the accused Adho Muni Singh, in the midst of the quarrel, when both the ladies were quarreling for the share in the property. PW-1 Dinbandhu Singh, PW-2 Kalyan Singh, PW-4 Nirmal Singh, PW-5 Gokhul Singh, PW-6 Lakhan Singh, PW-7 Santosh Singh and PW-8 Jalan Singh had reached the place of occurrence soon after the occurrence and they had seen the dead body of the deceased in the pool of blood and they were informed about the occurrence by Sunil Singh. PW-5 Gokul Singh had also seen the accused Raghunath Singh with the blood stained tangi in his hand at the place of occurrence, and PW-4 Nirmal Singh and PW-8 Jalan Singh had seen the accused Raghunath Singh fleeing away from the place of occurrence with the said tangi in his hand. PW-5 Gokul Singh and PW-6 Lakhan Singh are also the eyewitnesses to the quarrel between both the ladies and they had intervened in the quarrel soon before the occurrence. PW-6 Lakhan Singh has also stated that in the midst of the quarrel Adho Muni Singh had given the order to his son to kill the deceased. PW-5 Gokul Singh and PW-6 Lakhan Singh are also the eyewitnesses to the quarrel between both the ladies and they had intervened in the quarrel soon before the occurrence. PW-6 Lakhan Singh has also stated that in the midst of the quarrel Adho Muni Singh had given the order to his son to kill the deceased. The witnesses have also proved the fact that there used to be quarrel between both the wives of late Chaitanya Singh for the share in the property, which was kept by the accused persons only, depriving the informant and his deceased mother of any share. The ocular evidences of these witnesses are fully corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-10 Dr. Lalan Choudhary, who had found the ante-mortem incised wound on the head of the deceased, lacerating the brain matter, which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. The Doctor has stated that the injury could be caused by tangi as well. We also find that the admission of the I.O. PW-9 Dhananjay Singh, that he had not sent the blood stained soil for forensic examination, is not at all fatal to the prosecution, as the blood stained soil was seized from the place of occurrence, where the dead body itself was found. We are of the considered view that on the basis of the evidence brought on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home charge against both the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts and both the appellants have been rightly convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below for the offences under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 24th March 2007 and Order of sentence dated 24th March 2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Saraikella-Kharsawan, in S.T. No. 26 of 2006, whereby the accused appellants Raghunath Singh and Adho Muni Singh have been found guilty, convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which we hereby, affirm. The appellant Raghunath Singh is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellant Adho Muni Singh is on bail. Her bail is canceled and she is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The appellant Raghunath Singh is already in custody undergoing the sentence. The appellant Adho Muni Singh is on bail. Her bail is canceled and she is directed to surrender in the Court below forthwith, for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to forthwith issue the process, compelling the surrender/production of the appellant Adho Muni Singh in the Court below, for serving out the sentence. 15. In the result, we find 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.