Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 78 (JHR)

Parmanand Das v. State of Jharkhand

2018-01-10

HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2018
ORDER : Heard learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006, passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-2, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2005/91 of 2005, whereby, the sole accused has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the accused has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In view of the fact that he was sentenced for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, no separate sentence has been passed for the offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of Ranjit Das @ Guddu Das, who is the son of the deceased Ugani Devi, and brother of the accused, recorded on 30.3.2005 at Village Maheshlitti, P.S. Pathargama, in the District of Godda, at 12.30 a.m. in the night. In the fardbeyan it is stated that at about 5 p.m. in the previous evening, he heard the alarm raised by his bhabhi Rukmani Devi (the wife of this accused) and saw his brother, Parmanand Das coming out of his house with a spade and he chased the informant to assault him, but the informant saved himself by fleeing away. In the meantime, he assaulted one Most. Urmila Devi by the spade causing injuries on her and also assaulted his niece, aged about 3 years, and started fleeing away on the road, trying to assault anyone who would come in his way. He was apprehended by the villagers and the spade was taken away from him and he was kept tied by the villagers. Thereafter the informant went into the house and found his mother, Ugani Devi, aged about 70 years, lying dead in the courtyard-in the pool of blood with cut injuries on her neck. He was apprehended by the villagers and the spade was taken away from him and he was kept tied by the villagers. Thereafter the informant went into the house and found his mother, Ugani Devi, aged about 70 years, lying dead in the courtyard-in the pool of blood with cut injuries on her neck. His bhabhi, Rukmani Devi was also lying injured with bleeding injury on her head. She informed the informant that her husband, Parmanand Das had assaulted his mother, while she was smearing the courtyard with cow dung, causing her death and he had also assaulted and injured her. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Pathargama P.S. Case No. 45 of 2005 corresponding to G.R. No. 325 of 2005, was instituted against the accused Parmanand Das, for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the Police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. 5. In course of trial, 16 witnesses have been examined in this case, but almost all the material witnesses, including the informant and the injured, who are, PW 1 Rukmani Devi, the injured wife of the accused, PW 3 Geeta Devi, the wife of the informant, PW 4 Sangeeta Kumari, the daughter of the accused, PW 6 Diwakar Chaudhary, PW 7 Taro Devi, PW 8 Ranjit Das, the informant himself, PW 10 Brahamdev Das, PW 13 Bhim Chaudhary and PW 15 Mahi Lal Das, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case, though they have stated that the deceased was murdered, stating that they have no knowledge as to who had committed the murder of the deceased. PW 2 Sanjay Das, who is the son of the accused, and PW 14 Shiv Lal Murmu, have stated that they have no knowledge about the occurrence. PW 11 Deep Narian Das, was only tendered by the prosecution. 6. The prosecution case is supported only by PW 12, Most. Urmila, who is one of the injured in this case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on a Tuesday evening. PW 11 Deep Narian Das, was only tendered by the prosecution. 6. The prosecution case is supported only by PW 12, Most. Urmila, who is one of the injured in this case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place on a Tuesday evening. The accused Parmanand, whom she identified in the Court, came armed with a spade and assaulted on her head and left hand by spade, causing injuries on her and he fled away. Subsequently she learnt that he had committed the murder of his mother and also assaulted and injured his wife, by spade. In her cross-examination by the defence, she has stated that the accused Parmanand is not related to her and she had no enmity with him. She has also stated that upon being assaulted, she had become unconscious and when she gained consciousness, she found herself in Godda hospital, and she was informed that she was brought to the hospital by the police. She has stated that her statement was recorded by the police on the next day. She has denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused. 7. PW 5 Dr. Prem Shanker Singh had examined the injuries of the injureds, including that of PW 12 Most. Urmila. The injuries on the other injured PW 1 Rukmani Devi, proved by the Doctor, are not very material, as she has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case, stating that she had sustained the injury due to fall, upon seeing her mother-in-law dead. But so far as Most. Urmila is concerned, the Doctor has stated that he had found two cut injuries on her, one on her scalp, measuring 3" x 1/2" x skin deep and another on her left forearm, measuring 4-1/2" x 1" x skin deep. Besides these two cuts injuries, she was having lacerated wound of size 2" x 4" x skin deep. He has stated that cut injuries were caused by sharp cutting instrument and the lacerated injury was caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the injury report of Most. Urmila, as Exhibit 1. 8. PW 9 Dr. Subhan Murmu had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found the sharp cutting injury on her neck, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has proved the injury report of Most. Urmila, as Exhibit 1. 8. PW 9 Dr. Subhan Murmu had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and had found the sharp cutting injury on her neck, which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The findings of the Doctor need not to be detailed, in view of the fact that all the materials witnesses relating to the murder of the deceased, have turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution case. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked as Exhibit 4. 9. PW 16 Tej Narain Singh is the Investigating Officer of this case. This witness has stated that on 30.3.2005 he was posted as Officer-In-charge of Pathargama Police Station. On 29.3.2005, he got the rumor about the occurrence and was also informed that" the injureds had been brought to the Pathargama hospital. Upon information, he came to the hospital on 29.3.2005 and found Rukmani Devi and Urmila Devi in the injured condition and he prepared the requisitions for the injury reports of both the injureds, which he has proved, and were marked Exhibits 7 and 8. He has stated that the injureds were not in a position to give their statements and they were referred to Sadar Hospital, Godda. He sent the injureds to Sadar Hospital, Godda, and came to the village Maheshlitti, where the occurrence had taken place. where he, reached in the night at about 12:30 a.m. He came to the house of Parmanand Das, the accused and found Parmanand Das tied with a tree by the villagers and the dead body of an old female was in the courtyard of the house of Parmanand Das and he was informed that she was the mother of the accused Parmanand Das. He recorded the fardbeyan of Rarijit Das, the brother of the accused, which he has proved and the same was marked as Exhibit 9. He arrested Parmanand Das at the place of occurrence, who also informed him about the spade by which he had committed the murder. He recovered the spade near the dead body. The spade was bloodstained which he seized. He has proved the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit 10. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given details of the place of occurrence. He recovered the spade near the dead body. The spade was bloodstained which he seized. He has proved the seizure list, which was marked as Exhibit 10. He inspected the place of occurrence and has given details of the place of occurrence. He has stated that the deceased was having injuries on her neck. He prepared the inquest report of the dead body, which also he has proved, and the same was marked Exhibit 3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination, and he recorded the statements of the witnesses. He got the post-mortem report, and after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet. In his cross-examination he has admitted that the FIR had been sent to the Court on the next day. He also received the injury reports of the injured Rukmani Devi and Urmila Devi. Though he had collected the bloodstained soil from the place of occurrence, but he had not sent the same for forensic examination. 10. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr PC, wherein he has denied the evidence against him. On the basis of the evidence on record, the trial Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. 11. Leamed amicus curiae, arguing for the appellant, has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, all the material witnesses on the point of murder have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution. Practically there is no evidence on record to uphold the conviction for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, as all the witnesses to the said occurrence, including the injured, PW I, Rukmani Devi and the informant PW 8 Ranjit Das have turned hostile. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case in which the accused-appellant ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court below. 12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution case is supported at least by PW 12 Most. Urmila, who is an injured in this case. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case in which the accused-appellant ought to have been acquitted by the trial Court below. 12. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and submitted that the prosecution case is supported at least by PW 12 Most. Urmila, who is an injured in this case. She has specifically stated that she was assaulted by the accused by spade causing injuries on her head and forearm, and she has also stated that she learnt that the accused committed the murder of his mother and had injured his own wife by the same spade. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the State that the evidence of PW 12 Most. Urmila is fully corroborated by the medical evidence on record, and as such, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 13. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that all the material witnesses relating to the occurrence of murder of the deceased Ugani Devi, including the informant PW 8 Ranjeet Das, who is son of the deceased and PW 1 Rukmani Devi, the injured wife of the accused, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution at all. The witnesses have stated that they had no knowledge as to how the deceased died and PW 1 Rukmani Devi has also stated that she had sustained injury by fall, upon seeing her mother-in-law dead. Thus, there is no evidence on record that the accused, Parmanand Das had committed the murder of his mother Ugani Devi. Simply for the reason that the I.O. PW 16 Tej Narain Singh has stated that when he reached the place of occurrence, he found Parmanand Das tied with a tree by the villagers and the dead body of his mother was lying in the courtyard and the accused had informed him about the spade by which he had committed murder, and the injured PW 12 Most. Urmila, has deposed about the murder as a hearsay witness, the accused cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence of murder of his mother. Indeed, the seizure list of the blood stained spade, which is Exhibit 10, does not bear the signature of the accused Parmanand Das. Urmila, has deposed about the murder as a hearsay witness, the accused cannot be found guilty and convicted for the offence of murder of his mother. Indeed, the seizure list of the blood stained spade, which is Exhibit 10, does not bear the signature of the accused Parmanand Das. It is not even mentioned in this seizure list that the seizure was made on the disclosure by the accused. 14. However, the fact remains that PW 12, Most. Urmila has supported the prosecution case stating that she was assaulted and injured by accused Parmanand Das by spade on her head and forearm. Both these injuries are corroborated by the medical evidence of PW 5 Dr. Prem Shanker Singh and the injury report proved by him as Exhibit-1, which shows that there were sharp-cutting injuries on the scalp and forearm of this witness. So far as allegation of murder is concerned, this witness is not an eye-witness to the same and she has stated that she had only heard that the accused had committed the murder of his mother and also assaulted his own wife. 15. Thus, on the basis of the materials available on record, we are of the considered view that the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. However, there is evidence on record for his conviction and sentence for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code for causing injury to PW 12, Most. Urmila. In that view, of the matter, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, so far, they relate to the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 16. In view of the aforementioned discussions, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 21.12.2006 and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006, passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge. F.T.C.-2, Godda, in Sessions Case No. 126 of 2005/91 of 2005, so far as they relate to the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, set aside. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Parmanand Das for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court below, are hereby, affirmed. The appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence. The conviction and sentence of the accused-appellant Parmanand Das for the offences under Sections 307 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, passed by the trial Court below, are hereby, affirmed. The appellant is in custody undergoing the sentence. It appears from the record that the appellant has already remained in custody for more period than the sentence awarded under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant Parmanand Das is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. 17. Before parting with this judgment, we must record that we have been given able assistance by the learned amicus curiae, Ms. Alpana Verma. We direct the Secretary. High Court Legal Services Committee, 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. 18. This appeal accordingly, allowed in part. Let the L.C.R. be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along a copy of this judgment. Appeal partly allowed.