Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 229 (JHR)

Ramu Pradhan v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-23

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default whereof, to undergo further simple imprisonment for four months vide judgment dated 19.02.2010 and order of sentence dated 26.02.2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 92/2007 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Simdega. 3. FIR bearing Simdega P.S. Case No. 35/2007 was registered under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code on 05.03.2007 at 11.30 am on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Balram, son of late Chuita Pradhan (deceased), of village Kochedega, Taki Dubha, P.S. and District: Simdega recorded by the Sub Inspector of Police P.K. Biswas, officer-in-charge of Simdega Police Station at 8.20 hrs. on 05.03.2007 at village Taki Dubha. The informant inter-alia alleged that in the previous evening on 04.03.2007 (Sunday) at around 7.30, his father went for a walk outside his house and he followed him. His father proceeded towards the house of Ramu Pradhan where the accused Ramu Pradhan, son of Sahru Pradhan who was hiding himself, suddenly came out and assaulted his father with an iron Sabal near Gohal (cowshed) on his father’s head. On seeing that, the informant raised hulla (brawl) and ran towards him. His father had fallen down despite that, the accused Ramu Pradhan gave 2-3 more blows on his head, as a result of which, he started bleeding severely and was trembling in pain. The accused thereafter ran away. In the meantime, villagers assembled there, by that time, his father had died and there was lot of blood lying there. It is alleged by the informant that the motive behind the crime is an incidence which took place three months before on an occasion of eating and drinking when some altercation took place between his father and the accused, as a result of which, the accused had threatened his father. The informant asserted that this was the reason why the accused assaulted his father with Sabal on the head and caused his death. 4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the police. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. The informant asserted that this was the reason why the accused assaulted his father with Sabal on the head and caused his death. 4. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the police. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Case was put up for trial. 5. Prosecution examined nine witnesses in total namely, PW-1: Sita Ram Pradhan PW-2: Babulal Baraik PW-3: Laxmi Pradhan PW-4: Dr. Kishore Kullu PW-5: Bhagwan Prasad Jha PW-6: Mahesh Pradhan PW-7: Puni Pradhan PW-8: Junash Baa PW-9: Balram Pardhan Apart from the oral evidence, prosecution adduced certain documentary evidence up to exhibit-6, which are as under: Ext. 1: Signature of Sita Ram Pradhan on carbon copy of inquest report Ext.1/1: Signature of Sita Ram Pradhan on Seizure List Ext.1/2: Signature of witness Junash Baa on carbon copy of inquest report Ext.1/3: Signature of witness Balram Pradhan on Seizure List Ext.2: Postmortem Report Ext.2/1: Signature of Dr. Kishore Kullu on Postmortem Report Ext.3: Fardbeyan Ext.3/1: Endorsement about registration of FIR on Fardbeyan Ext.4: Formal FIR Ext.4/1: Signature of P.K. Biswas on formal FIR Ext.5: Carbon copy of inquest report Ext.5/1: Signature of witness on carbon copy of inquest report Ext.5/2: Signature of witness on carbon copy of inquest report Ext.6: Seizure List Material evidence was put to the accused during his examination under section 313 of the Cr. PC, to which he pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. In an answer to question no. 2, he also stated that the deceased was drunk and died due to fall. Learned Trial Court considered the evidences on record and found that PW-9, the informant, and the son of the deceased, was an eyewitness to the occurrence. He had proved his signature on his fardbeyan as Ext.-1/3 and the seizure list of Sabal as Ext.6. The other son of the deceased Mahesh Pradhan (PW-6) was also adduced as an eyewitness on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from these, widow of the deceased Laxmi Pradhan was examined as PW-3 as a hearsay witness and had approached the place of occurrence upon hearing hulla. The other son of the deceased Mahesh Pradhan (PW-6) was also adduced as an eyewitness on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from these, widow of the deceased Laxmi Pradhan was examined as PW-3 as a hearsay witness and had approached the place of occurrence upon hearing hulla. PWs-1 & 2 were co-villagers who also reached the place of occurrence on hearing hulla. PW-1 has proved his signature on the seizure list as Ext.-1/2. Medical Officer Dr. Kishore Kullu who conducted postmortem was examined as PW-4. He has proved his signature and writing on the postmortem report which were marked as Ext. 2 and 2/1. Bhagwan Prasad Jha, the Investigating Officer, was examined as PW-5. He has proved the endorsement on fardbeyan which were marked as Ext.-3/1; Fardbeyan has been also proved as Ext.3; signature of witness on carbon copy of the Inquest Report has been proved and marked as Ext.5/1 and the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.6; Carbon copy of the Inquest report and signature of witness thereupon has been proved and marked as Ext.5, 5/1 and 5/2. The formal FIR and the signature on the formal FIR has also been proved by the Investigating Officer PW-5 as Ext.4 & 4/1. 6. Learned Trial Court found the statement of the informant (PW-9) corroborated by the medical evidence. The other son of the deceased (PW-6) also was treated to be as an eyewitness as he had also reached the place and saw infliction of at least one sabal injury on his father through his own eyes. On consideration of all these evidences on record, learned Trial Court was convinced that prosecution had been able to prove the charges beyond shadow of all doubt. Hence, the sole accused/appellant herein was convicted for the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment, has inter-alia made the following submissions: He has raised doubt on the presence of PW-6 as an eyewitness to the occurrence. By referring to the paragraph-24 of his deposition during cross-examination, he submits that this is in contradiction to the statement of the informant (PW-9), who on his part, has stated infliction of repeated assault on the head of his father. PW-6 who also claims to be an eyewitness, has stated that only one Sabal injury was inflicted on his father’s head. PW-6 who also claims to be an eyewitness, has stated that only one Sabal injury was inflicted on his father’s head. The medical expert (PW-4), on the other hand, has found several ante mortem injuries on the body of the deceased which have not been explained by the prosecution in proper manner. Injury no. 1 and 2 have been found on either side of the head i.e. bleeding from right ear with clotted blood and left ear with clotted blood was present, but the medical expert has not been able to properly explain it in the context of the nature of assault by sabal allegedly inflicted by the accused/appellant. In his cross-examination, PW-4 has specifically stated that such injuries were possible due to fall on hard substance on land. During the examination of the appellant under section 313 of the Cr. PC, he has taken specific plea that the deceased was drunk and died due to fall on the ground. Injuries are such which can be caused by fall on hard substance, as opined by the doctor also. PW-3, wife of the deceased, who is the hearsay witness, as per her own statement, has not seen the assault. Other witnesses namely PWs-1, 2 and 7 were also hearsay witnesses who have allegedly reached the place of occurrence after hearing hulla. As per the description of the place of occurrence, there were houses of other villagers close to it, but none of the villagers have seen the occurrence by their own eyes and come forward to depose as such. The informant also in his deposition has stated that he never used to follow his father during walk except on that date. He has also stated that in the vicinity of the place of occurrence, there were houses of the villagers like Jatan Pradhan and Dhuna Pradhan, etc., but they have not seen the occurrence, nor have come forward to support the prosecution story. The motive suggested by the informant is of more than 2-3 months back prior to the date of occurrence and there is no reporting of such incidence before the police as per the statement of the informant himself. This is a concoction in order to support the prosecution story. The motive suggested by the informant is of more than 2-3 months back prior to the date of occurrence and there is no reporting of such incidence before the police as per the statement of the informant himself. This is a concoction in order to support the prosecution story. Learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in proper perspective and erroneously proceeded to hold the accused guilty of the charges, though prosecution had failed to prove the charge beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Therefore, appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken us through the evidences on record. He submits that the case of the prosecution story is able to stand on the basis of the statement of the informant (PW-9), son of the deceased and an eyewitness alone on corroboration with the opinion of the medical officer (PW-4). The other son of the deceased (PW-6) who had also rushed to the place on hearing hulla, had also seen the occurrence by his own eye. At the time he reached there, the accused had assaulted one more ‘Sabal’ blow on the head of his father. The widow of the deceased has also immediately reached the place of occurrence. Statement of PW-3, Widow Laxmi Pradhan is contemporaneous with the occurrence. As a hearsay witness also, her statement therefore can be read in terms of section 6 of the Evidence Act in order to prove the prosecution story. The injury on the deceased are on the vital part of his body i.e. head which are found to have been caused by hard and blunt substance such as sabal. Injury no. 1 showed laceration of right side of brain and meninges with fracture of right temporal bone. Injury no. 2 showed fracture of thyroid cartilage with hyoid bone was present. Injury no. 1, 2 and 3 are caused due to assault on the skull of the deceased by hard and blunt substance such as Sabal. All these injuries are ante mortem in nature and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to coma and syncope and hemorrhage due to above mentioned injury. Prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of the offence in a cogent manner by the testimony of reliable eyewitness. All these injuries are ante mortem in nature and in the opinion of the doctor, cause of death is due to coma and syncope and hemorrhage due to above mentioned injury. Prosecution has been able to prove the ingredients of the offence in a cogent manner by the testimony of reliable eyewitness. Thus, charges have been proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. The findings of the learned Trial Court are based on the proper appreciation of evidence on record and do not suffer from any legal infirmity or perversity which calls for interference in appeal. Therefore, appeal should be dismissed as without merit. 9. We have considered the submissions of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor and have gone through the entire material evidence on record and also perused the impugned judgment. Upon consideration of the statement of PW-9, informant, in particular, we find that he has been truthful and consistent in narrating the prosecution story set up through his fardbeyan. The occurrence was seen by his eyes and there is no contradiction or embellishment in his deposition. The father of the Informant had gone for a walk at 7.30 in the evening on 04.03.2007 in the village and was followed by the informant. He has particularly described the manner in which the accused was waiting and hiding in order to make a surprise assault on the deceased near his house. The moment the deceased came near his house, he came out of cowshed and assaulted the deceased on his head, as a result of which, he fell down. In spite of his falling down, assault was repeated on his head which the informant has also categorically stated in the fardbeyan and during course of his deposition in the trial. This stands corroborated by the number of injuries found by Medical Officer, PW-4 on the body of the deceased, ante mortem in nature, described as under:- On external injuries: Injury No. 1: Bleeding from right ear with clotted blood. Injury No. 2: Left ear with clotted blood was present Injury No. 3: Lacerated wound 1” x ½ “into deep into cavity with fracture of right temporal bone of scull at right ear area with laceration of pine of right ear. Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound ½ “x ½ “with fracture right temporal bone at right ear area. Injury No. 2: Left ear with clotted blood was present Injury No. 3: Lacerated wound 1” x ½ “into deep into cavity with fracture of right temporal bone of scull at right ear area with laceration of pine of right ear. Injury No. 4: Lacerated wound ½ “x ½ “with fracture right temporal bone at right ear area. Injury No. 5: Bruise 2”x2” with fracture thyroid cartilage of the neck. On Internal Examination: Injury No. 1: On opening of scull cavity there was laceration of right side of brain and meninges were present with fracture of right temporal bone. Injury No. 2: Fracture of thyroid cartilage with Hyoid bone was present. Injury No. 3: All visras were found congested. Nature of injury: All injuries are ante mortem in nature. Nature of weapon: All injuries are caused by hard and blunt object such as sabal. Time elapsed is death: within 24 hours of duration. Final opinion: The cause of death in my opinion is that due to comma and syncope and hemorrhage due to above mentioned injuries. This postmortem report bears is in my pen and bears my signature, mark it as Ext.2 and 2/1. Cross-examination: Injury No. 1 and 2 were due to internal injury. There was bleeding from both ears but injury was not visible. Such injuries are possible due to fall on hard substance on land.” 10. The Medical Officer has opined that the cause of death is due to coma, syncope and hemorrhage. Injury no.1 and 2 are the result of assault on the skull cavity by hard and blunt substance such as ‘Sabal’, which tally with the statement of the informant, an eye witness. Injury no. 3, 4 and 5 are also on the head and cartilage of the neck. This corroboration by the Medical Expert goes to show that appellant bore the intention to cause death of the informant’s father by repeated assault by a hard and blunt substance like ‘Sabal’ on the vital part of his body i.e., head. Injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The prosecution story as such, built up through the fardbeyan of the informant has been substantiated by the evidence of these two witnesses. 11. Injuries were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The prosecution story as such, built up through the fardbeyan of the informant has been substantiated by the evidence of these two witnesses. 11. Further, we find that PW-6, the youngest son of the deceased, had also rushed to the place of occurrence by that time and seen the accused inflicting one injury on the head of the deceased. Obviously, his presence follows the hulla created by his brother (PW-9). He could not have seen the first assault committed by the accused just prior in point of time on the head of the deceased, as was seen by PW-9, who was following him. Presence of PW-6 as an eyewitness to the occurrence therefore, cannot be ruled out on account of any such inconsistency, as alleged on behalf of the appellant. PW-3, wife of the deceased who was in her house, also rushed to the place of occurrence and has been able to describe the effect of the assault immediately following it in a spontaneous and contemporaneous manner. As a hearsay witness also, her statement is relevant to the fact in issue in terms of Section 6 of the Evidence Act which reads as under:- “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places”. [See: Dhal Singh Dewangan Versus State of Chhattisgarh [(2016) 16 SCC 701, para-22 & 24 thereof] 12. We therefore did not find any reason to doubt the testimony of these witnesses, though they may be related to the deceased, more so for the reasons that they were natural witness to the occurrence. There was a motive behind the assault as also narrated through the mouth of the informant who is grown up son of the deceased. 13. When the entire evidence on record is analyzed in such manner, we do not find any lacuna or hole in the prosecution case, which renders the prosecution story doubtful to give benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant herein. Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly come to the finding of guilt against him. 14. Learned trial Court has considered the entire evidence on record in proper perspective and rightly come to the finding of guilt against him. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussions made and for the reasons recorded by us on re-appreciation of the evidences, we do not find any reason to upset the findings of the learned Trial Court. The present appeal, being devoid of merits, is accordingly dismissed. Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the court below forthwith. Appeal dismissed.