Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 72 (JHR)

Ranga Lohra v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-09

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, APARESH KUMAR SINGH, KAILASH PRASAD DEO, KAILASH PRASAD DEO

body2019
JUDGMENT : Heard learned Amicus Curiae and the learned A.P.P. 2. The sole appellant stands convicted for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 10.12.2011 / 12.01.2012 passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 495 of 2005. 3. The FIR was registered on 15.02.2005 at 22.30 hrs. on the fardbeyan of the widow of the deceased Chandmani Devi (PW-1) at Arki near Arki Animal Hospital recorded by the Sub Inspector Saron Kumar Singh of Arki P.S. It is inter-alia alleged that the husband of the informant had a land dispute with the accused. On 14.02.2005 the deceased along with the daughter of his brother Chote Lohra was going towards the river when Ranga Lohra, appellant, assaulted him on his neck by Farsa near the house of Sulochan Lohra, as a result of which, he fell down and died within short time. She ran on seeing assault on her husband and on reaching the place of occurrence, asked the accused to also cut her. On her hue and cry, villagers assembled there and caught hold of the accused and snatched Farsa, in course of which, certain villagers also sustained minor injuries. Co-villagers Jagbandhu and Budhan Lal took away the Farsa from the hands of the accused and villagers caught hold of him. They brought the dead body of the husband of the informant to Arki, but since her house was far away and there were no vehicles, there was delay in approaching the police station. She asserted that due to the land dispute, the accused killed her husband by assault with a Farsa on his neck. She accordingly pleaded for appropriate legal action. 4. Upon conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted bearing no. 08 dated 15.05.2005 under section 302 of the IPC in connection with Arki P.S. Case No. 03 dated 15.02.2005. Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the court of sessions. Charges were framed and read over to the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty. During course of trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 is Chandmani Devi, PW-2 is Jagbandhu Ahir, PW-3 is Budhan Lal Munda, PW-4 is Chote Lohra and PW-5 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary. 5. Charges were framed and read over to the accused to which, he pleaded not guilty. During course of trial, five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW-1 is Chandmani Devi, PW-2 is Jagbandhu Ahir, PW-3 is Budhan Lal Munda, PW-4 is Chote Lohra and PW-5 is Dr. Ajit Kumar Choudhary. 5. PW-1 is the informant who, during course of her deposition, supported the prosecution story set up in the fardbeyan. She stated that at about 4-5 O’clock in the afternoon on the occasion of Saraswati Puja, her husband was going towards river with his daughter Sahjit and when he reached near the house of Sulochana, the accused struck upon the neck of the deceased by Farsa. He fell down and consequently, daughter also fell down from his lap. Her husband died soon thereafter. On being asked, the accused categorically stated that he had intentionally killed him. She also asked him to kill her and the child. On her alarm, villagers assembled and caught hold of the accused on chase. Budhan Lal and Jagbandhu both took away Farsa from the hands of the accused. It was evening by that time. The chaukidar came and conveyed this information to the police station. Police did not come on that day and therefore, villagers took the dead body of her husband to the police station where her fardbeyan was recorded. Fardbeyan was read over to her which she understood and put her thumb impression thereupon. In her cross-examination, she stated that the accused was her Bhainsur i.e. elder brother of her husband whose house was adjacent to their house. There was a land dispute going on between them since long. She further stated that properties have been partitioned amongst them. She also stated that at the time of occurrence, she was cleaning utensils outside her house. There was occasion of Saraswati Puja when number of persons were going for immersion of the idol of goddess Saraswati. Her husband was not going along with the idol, he was going to the river. There was no other house near the place of occurrence. Three other witnesses namely, PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have also deposed as eyewitness to the occurrence. 6. As per the statement of PW-2, he was coming on the fateful day i.e. 14.02.2005 from the side of the river when the statue of goddess Saraswati was immersed. There was no other house near the place of occurrence. Three other witnesses namely, PWs. 2, 3 and 4 have also deposed as eyewitness to the occurrence. 6. As per the statement of PW-2, he was coming on the fateful day i.e. 14.02.2005 from the side of the river when the statue of goddess Saraswati was immersed. The accused armed with Farsa was going towards river. As soon as he reached near the deceased, he struck him on the neck and caused injury. PW-3 Budhan Lal was also there. Wife of the deceased also confronted the accused to kill her as he had killed her husband. He along with Budhan Lal and other villagers caught hold of the accused and informed the police. Since police did not come, the dead body was carried to the police station on the next day. None were present in the police station. Police came in the night at 9-10 O’clock when the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded, on which she put her signature, which was marked as Ext.-1. Farsa was also seized and he put his signature on the seizure list which was marked as Ext.-1/2. Farsa contained blood stains. Dead body was sent for postmortem. He had identified the accused during cross-examination. He categorically stated that he was not with the immersion party and that the deceased and the accused were agnates (gotia) and were cultivating their share of land. This witness denied existence of land dispute between the two, but he admitted that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased. He categorically denied that the accused was suffering from insanity. He described the length of Farsa as about 8” in length and 1 1/2 “in width. He also had seen the injury on the neck of the deceased. 7. PW-3 Budhan Lal, in his deposition, narrated the incidence as an eyewitness and supported the prosecution case. According to him, he was standing in front of the house in Gali. The accused armed with a Farsa assaulted the deceased on the left side of his neck which caused deep injury and started bleeding. The accused was caught. The informant wife of the deceased also came running and stating that he should also kill her. Villagers assembled there since they were preparing for immersion of the idol of goddess Saraswati. The accused armed with a Farsa assaulted the deceased on the left side of his neck which caused deep injury and started bleeding. The accused was caught. The informant wife of the deceased also came running and stating that he should also kill her. Villagers assembled there since they were preparing for immersion of the idol of goddess Saraswati. The accused was caught and kept tied, but since the police did not came on the same night, they took the dead body of the deceased to the police station on the next day where fardbeyan was recorded. He has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan which was marked as Ext.-1/3. During his cross-examination, he further stated that there were two Tola in the village Badahatu having 30-35 houses. In the down Tola, there were 4-5 houses. Altogether there were 60-70 houses. The house of the deceased was on the eastern side and the house of Mangla Lohra was on the western side. Police came on 17.02.2005 at 10-11 O’clock at the place of occurrence. He also stated that the accused was not suffering from insanity. 8. PW-4 Chote Lohra in his chief, had categorically stated that he was standing in his courtyard and his brother, the deceased, was going towards the river with his three month old daughter when the accused came out of his house armed with Farsa. He also asked the deceased as to where he was going and then assaulted his brother with Farsa on his neck which caused serious injury. Daughter was also thrown away. When confronted, the accused ran after him and he escaped inside the Puja Pandal to save himself. This witness also stated that there were other persons present to whom he told that the accused Ranga Lohra has killed his brother. He further stated that Budhan Lal and Jagbandhu (PWs-3 & 2) were coming from the river side and that both caught hold of the accused with Farsa. Other villagers also assembled there. He stated that his brother had died due to heavy bleeding. Villagers had tied the accused Ranga Lohra and Chaukidar conveyed the information to the police station, but the Officer-in-Charge did not reach. He was on election duty. On the next day, dead body of the deceased was carried to the police station. Other villagers also assembled there. He stated that his brother had died due to heavy bleeding. Villagers had tied the accused Ranga Lohra and Chaukidar conveyed the information to the police station, but the Officer-in-Charge did not reach. He was on election duty. On the next day, dead body of the deceased was carried to the police station. The fardbeyan of his sister-in-law was recorded and her thumb impression was also taken on it. He has identified his signature on the inquest report, carbon copy and original which were marked as 1/4 & 1/5 respectively. Dead body was sent for postmortem. This witness also stated about existence of land dispute between two. The deceased was his full brother while accused was his cousin. Properties had been partitioned earlier. According to him, place of occurrence was 100 yard from the pandal of Saraswati Puja. It was bounded by the house of the accused Ranga Lohra in north and house of this witness in south. He also stated that the police had come to the village on 19.02.2005 and seized the blood stained Lungi and Ganji of the deceased. Budhan Lal and he both had signed on the seizure list. He described the Farsa as 6” wide and 2” butt in length. He also stated that the accused was not suffering from insanity and had never got mental problem. 9. PW-5, the Medical Officer who on account of death of Dr. Shambhu Sharan, Associate Professor in the department of Forensic Medicine, RIMS, Ranchi who conducted the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased on 16.02.2005 at 14.30 hrs. appeared to prove the postmortem report. He stated that he had worked with late Dr. Shambhu Sharan for ten years in the same department and was able to identify his writing and signature on the report which was marked as Ext.-2. Following injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Incised Wound: 8 x 3cm x bone deep on left side front of neck lower part situated transversely cutting the soft tissue blood vessels of the left side of the neck and six cervical vertebra partially with infiltration of blood and blood clot in the soft tissue and bony tissue at the side of tissue. In the opinion of the medical expert, ante mortem injury was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. He further stated that it could be caused by Farsa. In the opinion of the medical expert, ante mortem injury was caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. He further stated that it could be caused by Farsa. Death was due to hemorrhagic shock. Time elapsed since death was 18 to 48 hours at the time of postmortem examination. 10. Learned Trial Court considered the entire material evidences on record and came to believe that the prosecution story set up by the informant (PW-1) in the FIR was duly corroborated by all the three witnesses (PWs-2, 3 & 4). There was existence of land dispute between the parties, though PW-2 had stated in his cross-examination that there was no dispute of cultivation but he admitted that there was a dispute between the parties. The motive for occurrence therefore was undeniable. All these three witnesses deposed in the manner of eyewitness to the occurrence and fatal injury inflicted by the accused on the deceased, as per their version, stood corroborated through the postmortem report adduced as Ext.-2. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses were consistent and did not suffer from any such inconsistency or contradiction which could create doubt about their veracity and trustworthiness. Therefore, the charges were held to be proved beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. The accused was sentenced thereunder to undergo life imprisonment. 11. Learned Amicus Curiae has laboured to question the findings of the learned Trial Court inter alia on the following grounds: He submits that during incarceration, the accused was found to be suffering from severe depression and was sent to RINPAS for treatment for 2 and 1/2 months between 12.11.2009 to 27.01.2010. The manner of assault alleged by the prosecution also, is indicative of an unstable state of mind of the accused. The deceased was going with a three month old daughter in his lap when out of nowhere, it is alleged that the accused assaulted him with a Farsa on the neck. However, learned Amicus Curiae has not been able to countenance the query that the defence have completely failed to show that the accused - either prior to the occurrence or thereafter - was suffering from such insanity of mind which had rendered him incapable to understand the consequences of the act. No such suggestion were made either supported with any proof to lead to such inference during trial. 12. No such suggestion were made either supported with any proof to lead to such inference during trial. 12. Learned Amicus Curiae has further tried to develop the case on the plea of Exception 4 under Section 300 of the IPC and submitted that deposition of the prosecution witnesses indicated that the assault was made in course of quarrel without any premeditation. The accused had, even as per the case of the prosecution, inflicted only one injury on the neck of the deceased and there was no repetition of blows to show a definite intention to murder. He has also pointed out to the statement of PW-1 compared to the statement of PW-4 and submitted that the Informant during her narrative, failed to point out the presence of PW-4 who claims to be an eye witnesses to the occurrence. Therefore, in totality, the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt to hold the accused guilty of the offence of murder. He has pleaded for interference in the judgment of conviction. 13. Learned A.P.P. has taken us through the entire evidence on record in support of his submission that there was no element of doubt left about the occurrence and the manner in which accused / appellant inflicted the only fatal blow on the neck of the deceased which was found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature by the Medical Expert to be the cause of death. PW-1, widow and informant was also the eye witness to the occurrence and there was nothing in her statement which could discredit her testimony as such. She has named the presence of PWs-2 & 3 as well at the time of occurrence, who in their own deposition, had also corroborated the fact that they saw the assault by the accused and confrontation made by the informant to him to kill her as well, where after the accused was chased and caught by them. The Farsa was also taken away by him which contained blood stains. The deceased died on the spot on account of lethal injury inflicted at the vital part of the body i.e., neck. There was no provocation from the deceased for such assault and there was no immediate quarrel at all as is evident from the testimony of PW-4 also. The Farsa was also taken away by him which contained blood stains. The deceased died on the spot on account of lethal injury inflicted at the vital part of the body i.e., neck. There was no provocation from the deceased for such assault and there was no immediate quarrel at all as is evident from the testimony of PW-4 also. As such, the plea under Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC taken on behalf of the appellant, is not tenable in the eye of law or on facts. The defence has made no effort to substantiate the plea of insanity at the time of occurrence to seek the benefit of Section 84 of the IPC. As such, the conviction is proper. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court did not suffer from perversity or mis-appreciation of evidence. 14. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the material evidence on record as narrated herein above and also perused the impugned judgment. We find that the prosecution story unfolded through the mouth of the Informant (PW-1), widow of the deceased as recorded in her fardbeyan is duly supported by herself as an eye witness to the crime and the other three witnesses, PWs-.2, 3 and 4. Presence of PWs-1, 2, 3 & 4 at the time of occurrence is not rendered doubtful on account of any contradiction or inconsistency in the statement of each one of them. The incident occurred at around 4 to 5 O’clock in the evening on the occasion of Saraswati Puja where number of persons were preparing to go for immersion of the Idol of goddess. PW-1 was also cleaning utensils in front of her house and she had seen the accused assaulting her husband on the left side of his neck while going towards river. As a result of the assault, he sustained severe injury and fell down and died within a short time. Three months old daughter was also thrown out of his lap. There was no quarrel at that point of time going on between the accused and the deceased. PW-4 has adequately described the manner in which the accused standing in front of his house suddenly accosted the deceased and thereafter struck him on his neck which became the fatal injury causing his death. There was no quarrel at that point of time going on between the accused and the deceased. PW-4 has adequately described the manner in which the accused standing in front of his house suddenly accosted the deceased and thereafter struck him on his neck which became the fatal injury causing his death. The accused was caught immediately after the assault by the help of PWs-2 & 3 and the weapon of assault, Farsa was also seized from him. It carried blood stains. The seizure list was also exhibited during course of trial by these witnesses. Other villagers had also assembled there and tied the accused with a rope. Since the Police did not arrive on that day, the dead body was taken to the Police Station on the next day and thereafter sent for Post Mortem examination. The Post Mortem was conducted on 16.02.2005 at 14.30 hrs. by Dr. Shambhu Sharan who had passed away before he could be examined during trial. PW-5 is the colleague of late Dr. Shambhu Sharan who had worked with him for ten years and identified his writing and signature and was competent to prove the postmortem report. The injury sustained as described by him were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Appellant has completely failed to substantiate the plea of insanity on the basis of any materials on record to take cover of Exception-4 to Section 300 of the IPC. The appellant, in fact, had stated immediately after the assault to the informant / widow of the deceased that he had intended to kill the deceased. Both the ingredients of offence of murder were adequately proved by the prosecution beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts. 15. Upon careful analysis and re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the impugned judgment does not deserves any interference in appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as being without merits. 16. While parting, this Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance accorded by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. The Member Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall bear the fee / legal remuneration of the learned Amicus Curiae.