Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 581 (JHR)

Sanicharwa Bedia v. State of Jharkhand

2024-06-18

ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND

body2024
JUDGMENT : Ananda Sen, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 27.04.2018 and order of sentence dated 28.04.2018 passed by the learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XI, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 464 of 2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/-for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the informant is not a reliable witness as there are several contradiction in her statement. She on one occasion has stated that on raising alarm no one arrived at the place of occurrence whereas she has also stated that when the occurrence was taking place she never raised any alarm. The other contradiction the learned counsel for the appellant tries to put forth is regarding murder weapon. As per the FIR the informant has stated that the deceased was assaulted by stone on head and stomach whereas while deposing as PW6 she has stated that the deceased was assaulted by knife and after assaulting the deceased by knife, the appellant dragged him. This fact was narrated in the FIR. He further submits that all the other witnesses are hearsay witness and got the information from PW6 and admittedly they had not seen the occurrence. It is the further case of the prosecution that the murder weapon i.e. the knife has not been recovered and produced before the trial court. On this ground the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of this appellant beyond all reasonable doubt, thus he needs to be acquitted. 3. Counsel for the State submits that the entire evidence has to be considered in totality. PW6-the wife of the deceased is the eye witness and the fact that she was present at the time of occurrence and has seen the commission of murder by this appellant has been established. 3. Counsel for the State submits that the entire evidence has to be considered in totality. PW6-the wife of the deceased is the eye witness and the fact that she was present at the time of occurrence and has seen the commission of murder by this appellant has been established. So far as discrepancy with regard to the murder weapon is concerned she submits that the same is a minor contradiction and should be weighed in the light of the fact that the deceased is a rustic lady and had lost her husband in front of her eyes. As per the prosecution, the nature of injury which has been narrated in the FIR corroborates with the medical evidence. Once the prosecution has proved the commission of the offence and the testimony of PW6 has not been demolished, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the instant case, after hearing the parties and after going through the evidence on record we find that the FIR is at the instance of PW6 Bigan Devi who is the wife of the deceased and is the informant in this case. She in the FIR has stated that the appellant happened to be elder brother-in-law who entered the house at 10:00 PM on 10.03.2012 when they were taking rest. This appellant who happens to be the elder brother-in-law of the informant came near their entrance and started abusing the deceased and others. On hearing this abuse the deceased came out then this appellant caught hold of him and started assaulting him. As a result of his assault, he fell down then he was dragged out of the house and with the help of a stone he assaulted near the ear of the deceased and also on his stomach. As a result of the said assault the intestine got protruded. She thereafter raised alarm when the villagers assembled, by then the accused fled from the place of occurrence. In the FIR, the reason for the assault has also been mentioned i.e. there is family dispute between the parties. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Angara P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012 was registered on 11.03.2012 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the FIR, the reason for the assault has also been mentioned i.e. there is family dispute between the parties. 5. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan Angara P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012 was registered on 11.03.2012 under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After the investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under the aforesaid section and this appellant was put on trial as the charge was framed against him and he pleaded not guilty. 6. Altogether eight witnesses were examined in this case. Out of which PW6 is the eye witness and also the informant. 7. PW6-Bigan Devi stated that after taking meal, they were sleeping at around 10:00 PM. When this appellant came to their home alongwith the wife, they abused them. Thereafter the appellant and his wife dragged the deceased outside the house and the appellant took the deceased at his house. The appellant stabbed the deceased on his stomach and gave stone blow below the ear. This witness has also stated that they did not make hue and cry due to fear and threat. She stated that no one came at the place of occurrence for their rescue in spite of alarm raised by her. She did not take the deceased to the hospital for his treatment. On the next day i.e. on Sunday, she complained against the accused before the police station concerned. 8. PW1-Dubraj Bedia is the brother-in-law of the deceased and hearsay witness. He stated that the entire information about the occurrence was given by PW6 to him. On receiving the information, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of the deceased. He was informed by the informant that the deceased was killed by the appellant. 9. PW2-Devendra Hajam is the witness who stated that on hearing hue and cry from place of occurrence which is the courtyard of the house of the deceased, he saw the dead body of the deceased. He came to know that a fight took place between the brothers. He did not say as to who committed the murder. He also stated that police had not recorded his statement. 10. PW3-Safdar Khan is the investigating officer of this case. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the informant and had inspected the place of occurrence. He came to know that a fight took place between the brothers. He did not say as to who committed the murder. He also stated that police had not recorded his statement. 10. PW3-Safdar Khan is the investigating officer of this case. He stated that he had recorded the statement of the informant and had inspected the place of occurrence. He collected the blood stained soil and stone and seized them and sent it for forensic examination. As per the IO, he recorded the statement of Jitu Bedia, Heeralal Hajam and Devendra Hajam who according to him supported the prosecution case. He arrested the appellant who confessed his guilt. He proved the endorsement of the Officer-in-Charge in the fardbeyan which was marked as Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not mention about collecting blood stained soil and the piece of stone in the case-diary. He stated that he recorded the confessional statement of the appellant and sent the materials i.e. blood stained soil and piece of stone which he had collected from the place of occurrence. 11. PW4-Heeralal Hazam is the witness who stated that he was at home when the incident had occurred. He heard from the villagers that there was fight between the brothers in which the deceased was killed. The next day he saw the dead body of the deceased lying on the courtyard. He also stated that the police did not record his statement during investigation. 12. PW5-Jitu Bedia stated that Ghashi Ram Bedia is dead. He has been murdered. Sanicharwa Bedia/appellant has murdered the deceased. Both were brothers. He identified the appellant in court. In cross-examination he has admitted that he is not in the fit state of mind as he is consuming medicine for his mental illness. He stated that police had recorded his statement but on that day he was not aware of anything. He has also not stated before the police that Sanicharwa Bedia is dead. 13. PW7-Dr. Shiv Ranjan Kumar is the doctor who conducted the postmortem to the deceased. He stated that he had found the following injuries: “Abrasion- 2X1/2 cm front of right forehead. 2. 3X1/2 cm. Right chick middle part. 3. 2X1 cm. And 1X1/2 cm right elbow back. 4. 8X1/2 cm, and 4X1/2 cm. On front of right abdomen upper part. 5. 5X1/2 cm front of right abdomen lower part. 6. 7X1/2 cm. He stated that he had found the following injuries: “Abrasion- 2X1/2 cm front of right forehead. 2. 3X1/2 cm. Right chick middle part. 3. 2X1 cm. And 1X1/2 cm right elbow back. 4. 8X1/2 cm, and 4X1/2 cm. On front of right abdomen upper part. 5. 5X1/2 cm front of right abdomen lower part. 6. 7X1/2 cm. And 4X1/2 cm. On front of left abdomen upper part. Lacerated wound 1. 5X2 cm. X bone deep on right parietal region. 2. 4X1 cm. X bone deep over right mastoid process. Internal There is diffused contusion of whole scalp and both temporal muscle and depressed fracture 10X8 cm. On right temporo-parieto-frontal bone and crack fracture 9 cm long left parietal bone. Stab wound 1. 4X1/2 cm. X soft tissue on front of left abdomen middle part 12cm left to mid line. 2. 2x1/2 cm. X cavity deep on front of left abdomen middle part 8 cm. Left to mid line. The weapon passes through skin, soft tissue and puncher the stomach, small intestine and large intestine, omentum and mesentery. 3. 4x1 cm. into cavity deep on front of left abdomen lower part 3 cm. Left to mid line. Through which intestine is protruding out. The weapon passes through soft tissue and puncture the small intestine and large intestine. 4. 4x1 cm. into cavity deep on front of right abdomen lower part 2 cm. right to mid line. The weapon passes through soft tissue and puncture the, small intestine and large intestine. There is presence of blood and blood clots in abdominal and cranial cavity. and opined as follows: 1. The above noted injury are ante-mortem. 2. The abrasion and lacerated wounds are caused by hard and blunt substance and as stab wound is caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon. 3. Death is due to combined effect of head injuries and haemorrhagic shock. 4. Time elapsed since death is 12 to 24 hour from pm examination. This post mortem report was prepared in my own writing and signed by me. Marked as Exhibit-2.” In cross-examination he stated that the stab injuries and the head injuries were major. All the injuries except stab injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. He found 12 injuries and he denied the suggestion that he has prepared a wrong postmortem report. 14. PW8-Dr. Marked as Exhibit-2.” In cross-examination he stated that the stab injuries and the head injuries were major. All the injuries except stab injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. He found 12 injuries and he denied the suggestion that he has prepared a wrong postmortem report. 14. PW8-Dr. H.K. Sinha is a Forensic expert in the Forensic Science Laboratory, he stated that he received a wooden box containing a plastic box and stone piece which was marked as 1 & 2. The plastic box which was marked as “1” contained some soil which had reddish-brown stains. Stone also bore reddish brown stains over large area. After chemical examination, human blood was found in Exhibit-1 & 2. The blood group could not be ascertained from Exhibit which was marked as 1 whereas the blood group found from Exhibit 2 was blood group-“A”. 15. Thus from the evidence which has been led by the prosecution we find that only witness who have seen the occurrence is PW6. In the FIR she stated that the appellant came at their entrance door and started abusing when her husband awoke up and went at the door when this appellant dragged him and assaulted him with the stone on the head and stomach. She has categorically stated that because the assault the intestine got protruded and he died. While deposing as PW6 the fact that the appellant came to their house and abused them and dragged the deceased has been narrated by her but she has stated that the assault was committed by a knife and stone. In the last portion of the FIR she stated that the murder was committed by this appellant alongwith his wife who was also present, but in her statement as PW6 she has narrated that the wife of the appellant was also there and helped the appellant while the appellant was dragging the deceased. As PW6, she stated that the assault was only on head and the stomach. This fact has been corroborated by the doctor who has conducted the postmortem and also from the postmortem report. As per the doctor and the postmortem report which is exhibit-2 we find that the doctor had found injuries on the head and stomach and as per the doctor those were fatal. The only discrepancy is the murder weapon. This fact has been corroborated by the doctor who has conducted the postmortem and also from the postmortem report. As per the doctor and the postmortem report which is exhibit-2 we find that the doctor had found injuries on the head and stomach and as per the doctor those were fatal. The only discrepancy is the murder weapon. Though in the FIR she has not stated that the murder weapon was knife yet by deposing as PW6 she has stated that with the knife assault was committed. This contradiction cannot be said to be a major contradiction and basing on this contradiction, it cannot be held that PW6 cannot be disbelieved. This discrepancy according to us is minor in nature specially keeping in view of the postmortem report and the evidence of the doctor. Further one should not loose sight of the fact that this witness is a rustic villager who had seen her husband being murdered in the front of her. There is no other major discrepancy to disbelieve the testimony of this witness. In the cross-examination also we do not find any major material to disbelieve her. The fact that the appellant has dragged the deceased and assaulted him is corroborated. The nature of injury as narrated by this PW6 corroborate with the medical evidence. Further, the police seized the stone and soil smeared with blood which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The report also suggests that human blood was found in both the soil and on the stone. The fact remains that the testimony of PW6 is not shaken by any means. Thus, we find that the trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for committing offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. We do not find any ground to set aside the judgment of conviction. 16. This criminal appeal is, hereby, dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the court below is, 8 hereby, affirmed. 17. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith, along with a copy of this judgment.