Bariyal Baski @ Loso vs State Of Jharkhand

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2016 passed by Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in Sessions Trial No.378 of 2014, whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 302 I.P.C.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the evidence of the witnesses has not been properly appreciated by the Trial Court. If the evidence is properly appreciated, the only conclusion would be that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence. The statement of P.W.-6 cannot be relied upon. The medical evidence also does not support the ocular evidence. Most of the witnesses are hearsay and are not trustworthy. The prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Thus, this appellant need to be acquitted.

Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that P.W.-4, P.W.-5 and P.W.-6 are eye witnesses and from their evidence, there is nothing to disbelieve them. The motive has also been proved as the appellant and the deceased had a quarrel during the Sarhul festival. The eye witness i.e. P.W.-4 has given a detailed description as to how the murder had taken place and the ocular evidence matches with the medical evidence. Further, the incident occurred in two phases. First phase is the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased at the time of celebration of Sarhul festival and the second is on the same date when they were returning from the Sarhul festival. This appellant assaulted the deceased and committed her murder. Both these phases have been substantiated by the prosecution witness who had seen the quarrel and thereafter the murder. Thus, there is no scope where this appellant can be acquitted in this case.

The case of the prosecution on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely Bhajrai Hembram is that on 15.03.2014 a celebration on the eve of Sarhul festival was going on near the club of the village beneath a banyan tree and boys and girls of the said village were dancing and singing. At around 05:00 P.M. in the evening, some boys of another village came there and had shown their interest in dancing and singing with them to which the appellant and his wife objected and resisted them to do so. On seeing this, mother of the informant objected and told that why are they not being permitted to participate in this celebration, leading to quarrel, which after some time got settled. Thereafter, when the villagers including the mother of the informant started returning home, the appellant was following her. After some time when the informant went to see his mother, he saw the appellant running towards his house and his mother lying in a pool of blood. On raising alarm when he called the villagers to take his mother to home he observed that his mother has died. He along with the villagers informed Mukhia, Deputy Mukhiya and village Pradhan and other relatives about the incident.

Total eight witnesses were examined in this case.

P.W.-8 namely Dr. Prince Pingua is the Doctor who had conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. He found following antemortem injuries:

i. Incised wound on the left zygomatic area of cheek 5 cm x ½ cm x ½ cm.

ii. Incised wound one inch below injury No. (i) 3 cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm.

iii. Incised wound on left side of neck below ear 4 cm x ¼ cm x ¼ cm.

iv. Incised wound on left side of lower jaw 7 cm x 4 cm x bone deep. Mandibular bone exposed.

v. Stab wound on the right neck anterior to the sternum, mastoid muscle 8 cm deep x 2 cm x ½ cm.

vi. On dissection right carotid arteries and jugular vein, trachea are having stab wound. The edges are red. Blood clot present. Tissue refraction present.

The Doctor opined that all the injuries were ante mortem and caused by long sharp cutting and pointed weapon. The cause of death was excessive haemorrhage and shock due to injury No.5.

The said post-mortem report was marked as Ext.4. The cause of death was excessive haemorrhage and shock which is the result of the injury. The Doctor found four incised wound and one stab wound which are on the neck, lower jaw, below the ear & cheek. This witness and the exhibit which is the post-mortem report, clearly suggest that the death is homicidal and is murder.

As narrated earlier, the occurrence had taken place in two phases. First phase is the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased when Sarhul festival was being celebrated.

P.W.-4 namely Gurda Hansda had stated that at the time of celebrating Sarhul festival when the villagers were dancing, five or six boys from the different village came and they also wanted to participate in the dance which was objected by the appellant. The deceased confronted the appellant as she was in favour of allowing the outsiders to participate in the dance. There was hot exchange between the appellant and the deceased which was later on pacified.

P.W.-6 namely Bhojrai Hembram also stated that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased as the appellant did not want the outsiders to participate in the Sarhul festival.

Similar are the statements of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who are the sons of the deceased, but from their evidence, we did not find any material to disbelieve their statement.

P.W.-1 namely Durgapad Mahakur who is the Deputy Mukhiya of the Panchayat also stated that at night when the Sarhul festival was being celebrated, there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased as the appellant did not want the outsiders to participate in the Sarhul festival which was objected by the deceased.

All these witnesses were present there and were eye witness to the altercation. Thus, from their evidence, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove that there was altercation between the appellant and the deceased when the Sarhul festival was being celebrated at night.

The next phase is the commission of murder of the deceased. P.W.-4 namely Gudra Hansda is a very important witness on this point. He stated that after the celebration, the deceased was returning home and this appellant was following her. This witness had gone to his house and was ready to go to sleep when he heard some noise in front of his house, he came out and saw that this appellant was assaulting the deceased with a dagger. Out of fear, he did not try to intervene. Thereafter, he went and called the sons of the deceased who came immediately. The son of the deceased are P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, who stated that when they reached near the place of occurrence, they saw this appellant running away and they saw injuries on the neck and chin of the deceased. From the evidence of P.W.-5 and P.W.-6, the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence soon after the assault and his fleeing away is proved. The manner of assault and the part of the body on which the assault was given has also been proved, which is corroborated by the medical evidence also. There is nothing in the evidence to disbelieve them. The place of occurrence which is in front of the house of P.W.-4 has also been proved.

P.W.7 Jatanath Mishra, who is the Investigating Officer, has also inspected the place of occurrence and stated that it was near the house of P.W.-4.

Thus, from this evidence, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the involvement of this appellant in committing the murder beyond all reasonable doubt. P.W.-4 is an eye witness to the murder. The motive has also been substantiated as just before the occurrence, there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased in relation to allowing the outsiders to participate in the Sarhul festival. The statement of the informant (P.W.-6) in the fardbeyan has been corroborated by the medical evidence and also from the statement of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5.

The Trial Court has considered all these evidences and had concluded that the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. We do not find any material to differ with the finding of the Trial Court. We also are of the opinion that the guilt of this appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent and proper ocular evidence and medical evidence.

Thus, we find no merit in this appeal.

Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction dated 18.03.2016 and order of sentence dated 29.03.2016 passed by Learned District & Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila, in Sessions Trial No.378 of 2014, are hereby affirmed.

Pending interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.

Trial  Court  Record  be  transmitted  back  to  the  Court concerned.