Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 97 (JHR)

Guleshwar Bhuiya v. State of Jharkhand

2019-01-10

H.C.MISHRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. 2. The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25th of November, 2000, and Order of sentence dated 2nd of December, 2000, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 518 of 1995, whereby, the sole appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has 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 Munna Devi, the wife of the deceased Gurudayal Bhuiya, recorded on 16.3.1995 at 12.30 A.M. in the night, at the Lakhi Mata Colliery Colony, Nirsa, P.S.-Nirsa, District-Dhanbad, wherein she has stated that in the same night on 15.3.1995, at about 8.00 P.M., she was along with her husband in her house and was cooking meat. In the meantime, the accused Guleshwar Bhuiya came there and started eating the meat, which was still being cooked, whereupon she objected, and her husband said that he had made the meat stale, and asked her to give the meat to the accused. Thereafter, the accused started assaulting her and when her husband came to her rescue, he was dragged out of the house. The informant raised the alarm, but by that time, the accused Guleshwar Bhuiya took out a bhujali from his waist, and assaulted her husband on his both shoulders and in the abdomen, due to which, the intestine protruded out from the wound, and her husband died at the spot. Claiming that the accused had committed the murder of her husband assaulting him by bhujali in her presence, the fardbeyan was given by the informant, on the basis of which, Nirsa P.S. Case No. 59 of 1995, corresponding to G.R. No. 1000 of 1995, was instituted against the sole accused, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was taken up. After the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case. 4. After the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in this case. 4. After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, six 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. Out of the material witnesses examined, P.W.-1 Ramdhani Bhuiya has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case at all. P.W.-2 Arjun Choudhary and P.W.-3 Shivkant Pandey are only the witnesses to the inquest report, and they have not stated anything about the occurrence. 5. The prosecution case, thus, rests only on the evidence of sole eyewitness, viz., P.W.-4 Munna Devi, the informant of the case, and the widow of the deceased, who has fully supported the case, stating that the occurrence had taken place about 1½ years ago, at about 8.00 P.M., in the night, while she was cooking meat in her house. Guleshwar Bhuiya came there and started eating the meat and upon objection, he assaulted her and when her husband came to her rescue, the accused assaulted her husband by katari on both his shoulders and abdomen, due which he died at the spot and his intestine had protruded out from the wound. She raised the alarm and she also informed the police. Police recorded her fardbeyan, on which, she had put her thumb impression. She has identified the accused in the Court, stating that she was the eyewitness to the occurrence. In her cross-examination, she has stated that she had gone to the police station for informing the police, where she had put her thumb impression on her fardbeyan. She has stated that her children were also present, but they were minor children. There was blood at the place of occurrence, the police had seen the blood and also the protruded intestine from the wound. The clothes of her husband were also blood stained. She has stated that due to the fear of the accused, no one was ready to give the evidence against him. A suggestion was given to her, that her husband was still alive, which she has denied. The clothes of her husband were also blood stained. She has stated that due to the fear of the accused, no one was ready to give the evidence against him. A suggestion was given to her, that her husband was still alive, which she has denied. She has also denied the suggestion of lodging the false case. 6. P.W.-5 is Dr. Binod Kumar, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 16.3.1995, and had found the following injuries on the dead body:- (1) Incised wound on the anterior aspect of right shoulder 6” x 2” x bone deep. The wound was extending from anterior angle of axilla to the shoulder. (2) Incised wound 7” x 1 ½” x muscle deep on the outer other half of left arm along its length. (3) Incised wound 1½” x ¼” x muscle deep on the left top of shoulder. (4) Incised wound 9” x 2½” x cavity deep (intestine cut) on the left flank and front of middle of abdomen. On dissection:- Chambers of heart were empty, stomach contained about 200 gms. rice, meat and fluid, which strongly emitted alcoholic smell. Urinary bladder was empty. All the internal organs were pale. This witness has stated that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage, as a result of aforementioned injuries caused by the weapon having sharp cutting edge, such as bhujali and katari. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2. 7. P.W.-6 Bharat Prasad Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 16.3.1995 he was posted as J.S.I. at Nirsa Police Station. There was an information about the occurrence, whereupon he was sent to record the fardbeyan. He went to Lakhi Mata Colliery Colony and recorded the fardbeyan of informant Munna Devi, the wife of the deceased. He has proved the fardbeyan, which on his identification was marked Exhibit-3. He also saw the dead body and prepared the inquest report, which also he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-4. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, where he had found the blood, but the same could not be seized. He has stated that the intestine of the deceased had protruded out from the wound. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He has given the details of the place of occurrence, where he had found the blood, but the same could not be seized. He has stated that the intestine of the deceased had protruded out from the wound. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and the statements of the witnesses. He got the post-mortem report and submitted the charge-sheet in this case. He has stated that the accused had surrendered in the Court. He has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that he had not seized the blood stained soil or the clothes of the deceased. He has also stated that the deceased was working in BCCL Colliery, but he did not make any investigation in this regard. He has stated that the katari and bhujali are the same weapon and the informant had stated before him that her husband had been assaulted by bhujali. He has denied the suggestion of making the faulty investigation. 8. The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. On the basis of the material available on record, the accused-appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below as aforesaid. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the learned Trial Court below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the case is supported only by the wife of the deceased, who is a highly interested witness, and the case is not supported by the independent witness examined in the case, who has turned hostile. Learned counsel submitted that in the fardbeyan, it is stated that the deceased was assaulted by bhujali, whereas in her evidence the informant has stated that the deceased was assaulted by katari, and no motive has either been alleged, or proved by the prosecution in the case. It is submitted that as such, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and it is a fit case, in which, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 10. It is submitted that as such, the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and it is a fit case, in which, the appellant ought to have been given the benefits of doubt. 10. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer submitting that the case is fully supported by the wife of the deceased, who is eyewitness to the occurrence, and she has given the vivid details of the manner of occurrence. Learned counsel also submitted that her evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Binod Kumar, who had found the injuries on both the shoulders and in the abdomen of the deceased and, accordingly, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. 11. Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that though the prosecution case is supported by the sole eyewitness, i.e., P.W.-4 Munna Devi, the wife of the deceased, but her evidence appears to be absolutely trustworthy, inasmuch as, she has given the vivid details of the assaults made upon the deceased and all these details have been fully corroborated in the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Binod Kumar, and the post-mortem report proved by him as Exhibit-2. She has stated that the intestine of the deceased was protruded out from the wound, which fact was also found by P.W.-6 Bharat Prasad Singh, the I.O. of the case. The informant had put her thumb impression on the fardbeyan, which shows that she is an illiterate lady, and as such, some minor discrepancies, here or there, in her evidence, are not going to make any difference in the prosecution case, since her evidence is quite trustworthy, and she is the natural witness to the occurrence. Since the case is fully supported by the eyewitness, the motive behind the occurrence is immaterial. We are of the considered view, that on the basis of materials available on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused Guleshwar Bhuiya, 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. 12. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 25th of November, 2000, and Order of sentence dated 2nd of December, 2000, passed by the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Dhanbad, in Sessions Trial No. 518 of 1995, convicting and sentencing the appellant Guleshwar Bhuiya, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The appellant is on bail. His bail, is hereby, cancelled, and he is directed to surrender forthwith in the Trial Court below, for serving out the sentence. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue the process forthwith, compelling the surrender/production of the appellant Guleshwar Bhuiya in the Court below, for serving out the sentence. 13. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which 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.