Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1440 (JHR)

Suleman Aind v. State of Jharkhand

2022-12-22

AMBUJ NATH, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. P. K. Appu, learned A.P.P. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.08.2016 (Sentence passed on 19.08.2016), passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar No. I, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in connection with Sessions Trial No. 162 of 2011, arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No.51 of 2010, corresponding to G.R. No.308 of 2010, whereby and wherein, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti, held the appellant, Suleman Aind, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and thereby, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, along with a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for one year, out of fine amount Rs.20,000/- was directed to be given to the nearest relative of the deceased, under section 357 of the Cr.P.C. as a compensation. 3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of written report of the informant Soma Aind alleging therein that on 15.10.2010 at about 12:00 Noon, his younger brother Manoj Aind told him that the appellant had murdered his cousin Vijay Aind, aged about 12 years near Dahu Patra Forest. The informant went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in a nearby stream and the appellant Suleman Aind was running towards forest with a spade in his hand. 4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant for the offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, committed the case to the Court of Sessions on 05.02.2011, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 15.05.2012, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Manoj Aind (P.W.1), Soma Munda (P.W.2) and Ritka Pahan (P.W.3) are eye witnesses of this case. They have supported the prosecution case. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal (P.W.4) has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. 6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence. 7. Manoj Aind (P.W.1), Soma Munda (P.W.2) and Ritka Pahan (P.W.3) are eye witnesses of this case. They have supported the prosecution case. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal (P.W.4) has performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is (Ext.-1). Soma Aind (P.W.5) is the informant of the case. He has proved the written report, which is Ext.-2. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list relating to recovery of spade, which is Ext.-3. He has further proved his signature on the inquest report, which is Ext.-4. Vijay Munda (P.W.6), is a hostile witness. Tarkeshwar Ram (P.W.7) is the investigating officer in this case. He has proved the inquest report, which is Ext.4/1. He has also proved the place of occurrence, which is near the Forest in village Ludamkel. According to him dead body of the deceased Vijay Aind was lying in the nearby stream. He has further stated that the appellant had confessed his guilt and at his instance the spade used in the murder of the deceased was recovered. The appellant had washed the spade. He has proved the seizure list relating to recovery of spade which is Ext.3/1. 8. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication. 9. On the basis of the evidence, both oral and documentary, available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti held the appellant, Suleman Aind, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him accordingly. 10. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case due to land dispute between the parties. It was further submitted that the recovered spade, which is said to have been used in commission of the murder of the deceased was not sent for chemical examination to forensic lab, as such it cannot be inferred that it was used in the murder of the deceased. On these grounds it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. 11. Mr. On these grounds it was prayed that this appeal be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charge. 11. Mr. P. K. Appu, learned counsel for the State has submitted that all the eye witnesses have unanimously supported the fact that the appellant had inflicted spade blows on the deceased due to which he succumbed to his injuries. He further submitted that the appellant had washed the spade after commission of the offence and as such no purpose would have been served by sending the spade for chemical examination. It was further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed. 12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubts. 13. In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained: - (i) Whether the deceased Vijay Aind died a homicidal death? (ii) Whether the appellant Suleman Aind caused homicidal death of the deceased? 14. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15.10.2010 between 11.00 to 12.00 noon, the appellant Suleman Aind was fishing in the stream near dahu Patra forest and the deceased Vijay Aind was grazing cattle nearby. When Vijay Aind went near the appellant Suleman Aind, he inflicted several spade blows on the person of Vijay Aind due to which he succumbed to his injuries. The appellant fled away towards the forest with the spade in his hand. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the confession of the appellant spade used in the murder of the deceased was recovered. It has to be examined whether the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased Vijay Aind died a homicidal death. Manoj Aind (P.W.-1) has stated that he has seen the dead body of the deceased. There were three injuries on his person and blood was oozing out from his injuries. Tarkeshwar Ram (P.W.7) is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the inquest report, which is Ext.4/1. He has stated that he found the dead of the deceased lying in the stream. He found several injuries on the head of the deceased. There were three injuries on his person and blood was oozing out from his injuries. Tarkeshwar Ram (P.W.7) is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the inquest report, which is Ext.4/1. He has stated that he found the dead of the deceased lying in the stream. He found several injuries on the head of the deceased. From the perusal of the inquest report, which is Ext.4/1, it appears that the oral testimony of investigating officer Tarkeshwar Ram (P.W.7) that he had found injuries on the head of the deceased is corroborated by his findings in the inquest report. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal (P.W.-4) has performed postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. According to him he found following injuries on his person: - (i) A sharp cutting wound 7”x3” x bone deep on the back of head, semi-circular about 2” above neck. Underlying skull bone fractured, exposing brain matter. (ii) A sharp cutting wound 4”x2”x bone deep at the middle of head. There is fracture of underlying skull bone. (iii) A sharp cutting wound 4”x3” x bone deep at the right side of head. Underlying skull bone fractured, exposing brain matter. According to this witness, all the aforesaid injuries were caused by a hard and sharp cutting instrument. Death was due to shock and haemorrhage and damage to the brain matter. From perusal of the post-mortem report which is Ext.1 it transpires that the oral testimony of Dr. Chandra Shekhar Jaiswal (P.W.4) is corroborated by his findings in post-mortem report regarding the injury sustained by the deceased and his cause of his death. The injuries sustained by the deceased cannot be self-inflicted. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, we come to a finding that the deceased Vijay Aind had died a homicidal death. 15. It is further case of the prosecution that the appellant Suleman Aind has committed homicidal death of the deceased Vijay Aind. Manoj Aind (P.W.1) has stated that on the date and time of occurrence, he had gone towards the forest. On hearing cry of his brother, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Suleman Aind assaulting his brother Vijay Aind. There after he threw his dead body in the nearby stream and fled away with the spade towards the forest. In his cross-examination he has stated that Dahu Patra Forest is about one k.m. from Ludamkel village. On hearing cry of his brother, he rushed to the place of occurrence and saw Suleman Aind assaulting his brother Vijay Aind. There after he threw his dead body in the nearby stream and fled away with the spade towards the forest. In his cross-examination he has stated that Dahu Patra Forest is about one k.m. from Ludamkel village. He has also stated that at the time of occurrence Soma Munda and Vijay Munda were grazing cattle at the place of occurrence. He has corroborated the presence of Soma Munda (P.W.2) and Vijay Aind at the place of occurrence. Soma Munda (P.W.2) is also an eye witness to the occurrence. He has stated that at the time of occurrence he was grazing cattle at the place of occurrence with the deceased Vijay Aind. He has further stated that the appellant Suleman Aind was fishing in the nearby stream. When Vijay Aind went near him, the appellant gave several spade blows to Vijay Aind due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, Suleman Aind pushed the dead body of the deceased in the stream and fled away towards the nearby forest. He has not been cross-examined on the point of assault by the appellant Suleman Aind on the deceased Vijay Aind. Ritka Pahan (P.W.-3) has stated that he was grazing cattle near the stream along with Soma munda and Vijay Aind. Vijay went towards the stream to drink water; the appellant gave three spade blows to him due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, he pushed the dead body of the deceased in the stream and fled away towards the nearby forest. In his cross examination he has stated that he was at a distance of twenty steps from the place of occurrence while Soma Munda was at a distance of fifteen steps. From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses, it transpires that they have corroborated each other on the point that Soma Munda (P.W.2) and Ritka Pahan (P.W.3) were grazing cattle at the place of occurrence, which is near Dahu Patra Forest, at a distance of about one k.m. from Ludamkel village. They have also corroborated each other on the point that the appellant had given several spade blows on the person of the deceased due to which he succumbed to his injuries. They have also corroborated each other on the point that the appellant had given several spade blows on the person of the deceased due to which he succumbed to his injuries. Thereafter, the appellant dumped the dead body of the deceased Vijay Aind in the nearby stream and fled towards the forest. Tarkeshwar Ram (P.W.7) is the investigating officer of this case. He has proved the place of occurrence, which is near Dahu Patra Forest at a distance of one k.m. from Ludamkel village. According to him stream passes along the North West side of the Forest and dead body of the deceased Vijay Aind was lying in this stream. On the confession of the appellant, spade used in the murder of the deceased was recovered. He has proved the seizure list which is Ext.3/1. According to this witness the appellant had washed the spade after committing murder of the deceased Vijay Aind. From the perusal of the seizure list Ext.3/1 it transpires that a spade was recovered from the house of the appellant in presence of witnesses Soma Aind (P.W.5) and Baga Munda. Copy of the seizure list was also served to the appellant Suleman Aind. From the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence, it is apparent that prosecution has been able to show that the occurrence took place near Dahu Patra Forest, which was at a distance of one k.m. from Ludamkel village. Prosecution has also been able to show that at the time of occurrence deceased Vijay Aind was grazing cattle with Soma Munda (P.W.2) and Ritka Pahan (P.W.-3) at the place of occurrence while the appellant Suleman Aind was fishing in the nearby stream. The prosecution has also been able to show that when the deceased Vijay Aind went near the stream, the appellant Suleman Aind inflicted several spade blows on his person due to which he succumbed to his injuries. The spade used in commission of murder of the deceased was also recovered from the house of Suleman Aind on his pointing out. 16. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove that Suleman Aind committed murder of the deceased Vijay Aind by inflicting several spade blows due to which he succumbed to his injuries. 16. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the prosecution has been able to prove that Suleman Aind committed murder of the deceased Vijay Aind by inflicting several spade blows due to which he succumbed to his injuries. The learned trial court has discussed all the material aspects of this case and the judgment of the learned trial court does not suffer from any infirmity and as such it does not require any interference. 17. This appeal is dismissed. 18. Pending I.A., if any, also stands disposed of.