Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 972 (JHR)

Suresh Pasi v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)

2024-11-27

ARUN KUMAR RAI, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2024
JUDGMENT : Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. 1. Heard Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. assisted by Mr.Ranjan Kr. Singh, learned counsel for informant. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19.04.1997 (sentence passed on 21.04.1997) passed by Shri R.P. Verma, learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the appellant No. 1 has further been convicted u/s 324 Indian Penal Code and both the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the conviction u/s 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code whereas the appellant No. 1 has further been sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the conviction u/s 324 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jaldhar Passi recorded on 02.12.1995 in which it has been alleged that on 20.12.1995, the father of the informant, namely, Bindi Pasi @ Binod Pasi after arranging the paddy was returning home at 10 p.m. and as soon as he reached near his house, Suresh Pasi, Chhaku Pasi and Naresh Pasi who were hiding started committing assault upon the father of the informant with a sickle. When the father of the informant raised an alarm, the informant and his uncle Kailash rushed to save him at which Suresh Pasi assaulted the informant with a sickle and in trying to save himself, the informant suffered cut injury on his fingers. The informant in order to save himself fled away while his uncle was pelted with stones by the women folk and he also managed to flee away. On hearing the commotion, Anandi Pasi, Nandu Pasi, Tikhu Pasi and others had assembled and had seen the occurrence and had also seen the accused persons fleeing away. The father of the informant was brought home, where he succumbed to his injuries. The reason for the murder of the father of the informant was alleged to be land dispute. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 137/1995 was instituted. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.119 of 1996. The reason for the murder of the father of the informant was alleged to be land dispute. Based on the aforesaid allegations, Poraiyahat P.S. Case No. 137/1995 was instituted. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No.119 of 1996. Charge was framed against both the appellants for the offence punishable u/s 302/ 34 of the I.P.C. and additionally charge was framed against the appellant No. 1 u/s 307 of the I.P.C which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution has examined as many as eleven (11) witnesses in support of its case. P.W. 1 Ghutri Devi has stated that the incident is of eight months back at about 10 p.m. and she was standing near the door along with her son Jaldhar waiting for her husband who had gone to the Khalihan. When her husband was returning Chhaku, Naresh and Suresh surrounded him near the shop of Babulal. Her husband raised an alarm at which she and her son rushed to the said place where they saw Chhaku catching hold of her husband while Naresh gave a blow on the chest with a sickle. When her son Jaldhar ran, Suresh struck him with a sickle which led to an injury on his finger. Her husband was brought to the door of her house. She has stated that Kailash had also run to save her husband at which some females started pelting stones and bricks at him. She had identified the accused in the electric light. She has stated that before the Doctor came, her husband had died. In cross examination she has deposed that there was a litigation between her husband and the accused persons. The same related to a land. It was a winter night and her husband was returning from the Khalihan at 10 p.m. When her husband was coming, she was sitting on the door. P.W. 2 Khiro Pasi has stated that it was 10 p.m. when he heard the commotion from the house of Babulal and he found Chhaku, Naresh and Suresh present and Naresh had struck on the chest of Bindi with a sickle. P.W. 2 Khiro Pasi has stated that it was 10 p.m. when he heard the commotion from the house of Babulal and he found Chhaku, Naresh and Suresh present and Naresh had struck on the chest of Bindi with a sickle. When the son of Bindi intervened he was assaulted by Suresh with sickle which injured his finger. The incident was witnessed by Budhu and Kailash also. The assault had taken place due a land dispute. In cross examination he has deposed that when he had gone to the place of occurrence he had found blood at the said place. There was electric light at the place of occurrence. P.W.3 Budhu Pasi has stated that he was in his house when he heard some commotion at which he went near the shop of Babulal and found Bindi lying on the ground. The people who had assembled had disclosed that Naresh had assaulted him with a sickle. In cross examination he has deposed that Bindi was a member of his family. P.W. 4 Kalilash Pasi has stated that it was 10 p.m. when he heard a commotion and when he went outside, he found Chhaku Pasi and Suresh Pasi catching hold of Bindi Pasi and Naresh Pasi was assaulting Bindi Pasi with a sickle. Bindi Pasi fell on the ground. When Jaldhar and his mother tried to catch Naresh Pasi, he managed to flee away. He has stated that Suresh Pasi had assaulted Jaldhar Pasi with a sickle which injured his left hand. The family members of the accused started pelting stones as a result of which he had sustained injury. He has stated that Bindi Pasi died while being taken to his house. The murder took place because of land dispute. In cross examination he has deposed that he and the accused persons belong to the same family. The incident took place in a winter night. His house is situated in front of the house of Bindi Pasi. P.W. 5 Anandi Singh is a witness to the inquest report. P.W. 6 Anandi Pasi has stated that he was standing at his door when he saw his brother Bindi Pasi returning from the Khalihan and when he reached near the house of Babulal he was surrounded by Suresh, Chhaku and Naresh and while Chhaku Pasi caught hold of Bindi. Naresh assaulted Bindi on his chest with a sickle. P.W. 6 Anandi Pasi has stated that he was standing at his door when he saw his brother Bindi Pasi returning from the Khalihan and when he reached near the house of Babulal he was surrounded by Suresh, Chhaku and Naresh and while Chhaku Pasi caught hold of Bindi. Naresh assaulted Bindi on his chest with a sickle. When Jaldhar Pasi intervened, Suresh had struck him with a sickle which led to a cut injury suffered by Jaldhar on his hand. When he and the others rushed to the place of occurrence, the family members of the accused started pelting stones and bricks which resulted in his suffering an injury also. Bindi Pasi died when he was being taken to his house. The cause of incident was on account of land dispute. In cross examination he has deposed that while Jaldhar and his mother returned from the Khalihan at 5 p.m., Bindi Pasi had returned at 10 p.m. In the evening he was sitting at his door, where Jaldhar, Kailash and the wife of Bindi Pasi were also present and he had seen Bindi Pasi returning from the Khalihan. The houses of the accused persons are situated in front of his house. It was moonlit night and there was electric light as well. When Bindi had raised a cry of alarm, he and the other had rushed to the place of occurrence. P.W. 7 Babulal Pasi has been tendered by the prosecution. P.W. 8 Dr. Aashish Kumar was posted as a Civil Assistant Surgeon in Godda and on 22.12.1995 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Bindi @ Binod Pasi and had found the following:- (i) Incised wound slightly oblique size 3" x 1/4" x 3" on the left chest in the fifth inter coastal state. On dissection brain was found pale. On the heart there was sharp incised wound in the right verticle on both anterior and posterior aspect of the size 1.1/2" x 1/5". The right leying had an incised wound on the lower part size 1/2" x 1/6". All the chambers of the heart were empty. There was too much blood in the thoracic cavity. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Time elapsed since death was within 36 hours. The cause of death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the above injury. All the chambers of the heart were empty. There was too much blood in the thoracic cavity. Liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Time elapsed since death was within 36 hours. The cause of death was on account of shock and haemorrhage due to the above injury. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 9 Jaldhar Pasi is the son of the deceased who has stated that it was 10 p.m. and he was near his door, when he saw his father returning from the Khalihan. When his father reached near the house of Babulal, the accused persons had surrounded him and while Chhaku caught hold of his father, Naresh gave a blow with a sickle on the chest of his father. On seeing the assault, when he rushed to save his father, Suresh gave a blow with a sickle on his neck which he fended off with his hand and resultantly he suffered a cut injury on his finger. At the time of the incident Kailash Pasi, Khiro Pasi, Budhu Pasi, Anandi Pasi and his mother Ghutri Devi were present. His father was brought to the door of his house. He has stated that the assault had taken place due to a land dispute. In cross examination he has deposed that, his father has gone to the Khalihan in the morning and he had accompanied his father. He had returned back alone at 3.30 p.m. There are several houses in between his house and the Khalihan. He has deposed that his father had sustained only one injury. P.W. 10 Dr. Bindeshwar Panjiyara was posted as an Incharge Medical Officer, Poraiyahat and on 21.12.1995, he had examined Jaldhar Pasi and had found the following:- (i) (incised would on the back of left middle finger 1”X1/4”X1/6” (ii) Linear incised would on the proximal pharynx of left ring finger on the back adjacent to injury No. (i) Above, skin deep. The above injuries were opined to be simple in nature cause by sharp cutting substance in one stroke. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 11 R.B. Nanhe was posted as Officer-in-Charge at Poraiyahat P.S. and on 21.12.1995 at 8.30 a.m. he had recorded the Fardbeyan of Jaldhar Pasi. He has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3. He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Ext. 2. P.W. 11 R.B. Nanhe was posted as Officer-in-Charge at Poraiyahat P.S. and on 21.12.1995 at 8.30 a.m. he had recorded the Fardbeyan of Jaldhar Pasi. He has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3. He had taken over the investigation and had recorded the restatement of the informant. He had inspected the place of occurrence, which is the main road going towards village Dande in front of the shop of the Babulal. He could not find any blood at the place of occurrence since it was a road. He had prepared the inquest report and has proved the same which has been marked as Ext. 4. He has also proved the seizure list of a green coloured Shawl which has been marked as Ext. 5. He had produced the Shawl in Court which has been marked as Material Ext. 1/1. The postmortem report was marked as ‘X ‘. He has submitted charge sheet showing one of the accused as absconder. In cross examination he has deposed that he had not sealed the shawl. He had not found any blood at the place of occurrence. 5. The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder. 6. The defence has examined one witness in support of its case. D.W. 1 Ashutosh Kumar Mishra was posted as a Switch Board Operator at Banshi Power Station and 20.12.1995 at 5.10 p.m. he had switched off the power supply and the power was restored on 22.12.1995. In cross examination he has deposed that in the register he had maintained on 20.12.1995 there was no supply of electricity. He had switched on the power on 22.12.1995 after the electricity supply was restored. 7. It has been submitted by Mr. R. R. Mishra, learned amicus that the contradictions appearing in the evidence of the witnesses create a doubt on the prosecution case. In course of trial, the prosecution witnesses had developed their case. Mr. Mishra has submitted that admittedly, there was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons and it is to be borne in mind that enmity is a doubled edged sword which cuts both ways. The incident had taken place at 10 p.m. and according to Mr. In course of trial, the prosecution witnesses had developed their case. Mr. Mishra has submitted that admittedly, there was a land dispute between the deceased and the accused persons and it is to be borne in mind that enmity is a doubled edged sword which cuts both ways. The incident had taken place at 10 p.m. and according to Mr. Mishra it was a day before Amawashya as such there was no occasion for the witnesses to have ascertained the identity of the accused. The prosecution has filled up the lacuna in the case by virtue of the witnesses stating that the blood was washed in order to cover up the presence of blood at the place of occurrence and that it was a moonlit night in order to remove the doubt regarding identification of the accused. 8. Mr. Md. Azeemuddin, learned APP has submitted that several eye witnesses have given a consistent and vivid description of the assault committed by the accused persons upon Bindi Pasi and their evidence also sets at rest the doubt created by the defence regarding identification of the accused. 9. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records. 10. It is to be noted that the accused Naresh Pasi had absconded while the appellant No. 2 Chakku Pasi has died during the pendency of this appeal and this appeal has abated so far as appellant No. 2 is concerned. It appears that PW-1, PW-4, PW-6 and PW-9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. All the witnesses have been consistent with respect to the fatal blow given by Naresh Pasi upon Bindi Pasi with a sickle on chest. PW-4 has stated about the appellant and Chhaku Pasi catching hold of Bindi Passi while Naresh Pasi had committed the assault. The other eye witnesses have stated about Chhaku Pasi only who had caught hold of Bindi Pasi. The accused persons including the appellant in pursuance of a preconceived plan were waiting near the shop of Babulal for the arrival of Bindi Pasi from the Khalihan and as soon as he arrived he was surrounded by the accused persons and subjected to assault resulting in his death. When PW-9 intervened, he was assaulted with a sickle by the appellant resulting in a cut injury suffered by PW-9 on his finger. When PW-9 intervened, he was assaulted with a sickle by the appellant resulting in a cut injury suffered by PW-9 on his finger. The witnesses have also identified the appellant and others as it was a moonlit night and the place of occurrence was illuminated by electricity as well. Even if, we accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the doubt over the identification of the assailants since it was a dark night such submission can be conveniently discarded as the accused person and the deceased as well as the eye witnesses belong to the same family and their silhouette and mannerism would give away their identity. In such context we make reference to the case of Ramesh v. State BY MADHUGIRI POLICE reported in (2010) 15 SCC wherein it has been held as follows:- 15. “ As stated earlier, the appellant and these two witnesses (PWs 3 and 4) are neighbours and, therefore, knew the appellant well and their claim of identification cannot be rejected only on the ground that they have identified him in the evening, when there was less light. It has to be borne in mind that the capacity of the witnesses living in rural areas cannot be compared with that of urban people who are acclimatised to fluorescent light. Visible (sic visual) capacity of the witnesses coming from the village is conditioned and their evidence cannot be discarded on the ground that there was meagre light in the evening. There is nothing on record to show that these two witnesses are in any way interested and inimical to the appellant. Their evidence clearly shows that the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the High Court did not err in relying on their evidence.” 11. The evidence of the eye witnesses clearly reveals that all the accused persons in furtherance of a common intention had led to the assault committed upon Bindi Pasi resulting in his death and the injury caused upon PW-9. The learned trial court has appropriately dealt with the evidence of the eye witnesses while arriving at a finding of guilt of the appellant. We do not find any reason to differ with such finding and consequently we dismiss this appeal. Pending I.As., if any stand closed. 12. The learned trial court has appropriately dealt with the evidence of the eye witnesses while arriving at a finding of guilt of the appellant. We do not find any reason to differ with such finding and consequently we dismiss this appeal. Pending I.As., if any stand closed. 12. Since the appellant is on bail, he is directed to surrender immediately and forthwith to serve out the rest part of his sentence.