Binod Sinku And Other vs State of Jharkhand

As both these appeals arise out of the same impugned Judgment, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 13th July, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 19th July, 2006, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2005, whereby, all the three appellants have been found guilty

and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been sentenced

to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Bikram Sinku, the brother of the deceased Mata Sinku, recorded

at P.H.C. Jagannathpur on 23.03.2005 at 2.00 A.M. in the night, wherein the informant has stated that on the previous day, i.e., on 22.03.2005, Maghe

festival was being celebrated in his village, in which dancing and singing was going on in the front of the house of old Munda of the village, where he

had gone along with his brother Mata Sinku. At about 10.00 P.M., the informant returned back to his house. At about 11.00 P.M. in the night, he

heard the sound of screams and when he came out of his house, he saw that his brother Mata Sinku was being assaulted by Binod Sinku, Sunil Sinku

and Sangram Sinku. Sunil Sinku was armed with tangi, who assaulted his brother by tangi on his head, due to which his brother became unconscious.

When the persons assembled there, the accused persons fled away. His brother was brought to hospital, but he died in the way. On the basis of the

fardbeyan of the informant, Jagannathpur P.S. Case No.17Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.176 of

2005, was instituted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the named accused persons, and investigation was taken up.

After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case. Â

Upon commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused persons for the offence under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code, and upon the accused persons' pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, they were put to trial. In course of trial, seven 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.Â

P.W.-4 Bikram Sinku is the informant in the case and the brother of the deceased. This witness has stated that the occurrence took place on

22.03.2005 at about 11.00 P.M. in the night. He had returned back from the place where the dance was going on and he was in his house. Upon

hearing the noise, he came out of the house and saw the accused persons Binod, Sangram and Sunil assaulting his brother Mata Sinku. Sunil assaulted

his brother by tangi on his head and the other accused persons assaulted his brother by lathi. As soon as he came out of his house, the wife of the

deceased also came there. The accused persons thereafter fled away. The deceased was brought to hospital, where he died. In the morning, the

police visited the hospital where he gave his fardbeyan, which was read over to him and finding the same true, he put his thumb impression on the

fardbeyan. He has identified the accused persons in the Court. In his              cross-examination, this witness has admitted

that the accused                    Sangram Sinku is his own elder brother and the accused Binod Sinku and Sunil

Sinku are his nephews. He has stated that there was no enmity between the parties. The house of the old Munda of the village, where singing and

dancing was going on, was situated at a distance of about 50 steps from his house, and in between, there were 4-5 houses. To the Court question, this

witness has stated that at the time of occurrence, Budhni Kui, the wife of the deceased and Hari Nath Kunkal had reached there. His attention was

drawn towards the statement given by him before the police, but there is nothing of much importance in it, as there is nothing therein to show that he is

not the eye witness to the occurrence. He has denied the suggestion to have given the false evidence.

P.W.-2 Budhni Kui is the wife of the deceased and she has also supported the prosecution case as an eye witness to the occurrence. She was

present in her house when upon hearing the noise, she came out and saw all the three accused persons assaulting her husband. She has also stated

that Binod Sinku and Sangram Sinku had assaulted her husband by lathi, whereas Sunil Sinku had assaulted her husband by tangi. She has stated that

her husband died at the spot. She has also identified the accused persons in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that the place

where singing and dancing was going on, was at a distance of about 1000 yards from her house. In her cross-examination, she has also admitted that

her husband was in jail in connection with some case.Â

P.W.-3 Nipul Sinku is the daughter of the deceased and she has stated that she had also gone to the place where on the occasion of Maghe festival

dancing and singing was going on, and she was returning from the festival. She was behind her father, following him. When they reached near the

house of her father, all the three accused persons apprehended her father and Sangram Sinku and Binod Sinku assaulted her father by lathi and Sunil

Sinku assaulted her father by tangi due to which her father fell down. Upon seeing the occurrence, she concealed herself behind a house and after the

occurrence, when she went near her father, her mother Budhni Kui had also reached there, and they saw her father dead. She has also identified the

accused persons in the Court. Though this witness was also put to extensive cross-examination, but there is nothing of much importance in her cross

examination.

P.W.-1 Hari Nath Kunkal and P.W.-6 Mata Tubid, the husband of P.W.-3 Nipul Sinku, are the hearsay witnesses to the occurrence. Both these

witnesses had reached the hospital upon hearing about the occurrence and they were informed about the occurrence. They had seen the dead body

and they are also the witnesses to the inquest-report of the dead body. Both of them have identified their signatures on the inquest-report, which were

marked Ext. 1 and 1/1 respectively.

P.W.-5 is Dr. Umendra Prasad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 23.03.2005 and had found

the following ante-mortem injuries on the dead body :-Â Â

 External :-Â

Sharp cutting injury on left parietal bone 3â€​ x ½’ x behind the left ear.

Lacerated wound on left parietal bone above the left ear 4â€​ x 2’ up to brain matter with fracture of the left parietal bone.

Internal:-

Head- Fracture of left parietal bone. Blood in cranial cavity with laceration of brain matter.

Chest and abdomen- No blood in chest cavity. All chambers of heart were empty.

Liver and lungs- pale. Stomach contained digested food material (rice).

Bladder- Empty. Other viscera intact. Â

        This witness has stated that the death was caused due to head injury causing hemorrhage and shock. Injury No.1 was caused by

sharp cutting weapon, could be by tangi. Injury No.2 was caused by hard and blunt substance. He has identified the post-mortem report to be in his

pen and signature, which was marked Ext.2. Â

P.W.-7 Maheshwar Singh is the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 23.03.2005 he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Jagannathpur

Police Station. At about 1.30 A.M. in the night, he got the information that someone was assaulted, who had died in the hospital. The sanha entry was

made and he proceeded towards the hospital where he recorded the fardbeyan of Bikram Sinku, on the basis of which, the case was instituted and

investigation was taken up. He has stated that he recorded the restatement of the informant and prepared the inquest-report of the dead body which

he has proved and the same was marked Ext.4. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. He had also inspected the place of occurrence,

which he has detailed in his evidence and has stated that he found blood at the place of occurrence. The house of the deceased was situated at a

distance of about 50 yards from the place of occurrence and adjacent thereto was the house of accused persons. He had seized the blood from the

place of occurrence. After completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in the case. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated

that during investigation, he had learnt that the accused was a convict and he had returned to his village after serving the sentence. His attention was

drawn towards the statements of some witnesses, but except minor contradictions, there is nothing of much importance. He had admitted that he had

not sent the blood stained soil for forensic examination and he had not recovered the weapon of offence. He has denied the suggestion of making

faulty investigation.Â

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein these accused appellants have denied the

evidence against them. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Trial Court below has found the

appellants guilty, and convicted and sentenced them for the offence, as aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court

below cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellants beyond all

reasonable doubts. It is submitted that there are contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses, in as much as, some of witnesses have stated that the

deceased had died at the spot and the others have stated that the deceased had died in the hospital. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that

though there is allegation against all the three accused persons to have assaulted the deceased, but only two injuries were found on the dead body, as

is apparent from the evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Umendra Prasad. Learned counsel further submitted that prosecution case is supported only by the

relative witnesses of the deceased and there is no other eye-witness to the occurrence and, as such, it is not safe to rely only upon the evidence of the

highly interested witnesses, and in the facts of this case, the appellants were entitled at least to the benefits of doubt.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, submitting that the prosecution case is fully supported by three witnesses

as eye-witness to the occurrence, who are P.W.-2 Budhni Kui, the wife of the deceased, P.W.-3 Nipul Sinku, the daughter of the deceased and

P.W.-4 Bikram Sinku, the brother of the deceased. It is submitted that the occurrence had taken place in the dead night at about 11:00 P.M. in front of

the house of the deceased and there was no occasion of any other person to have witnessed the occurrence. These witnesses are natural witness to

the occurrence. Learned counsel submitted that the ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-

5Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Dr. Umendra Prasad and post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.2, and as such, there is no

illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the Trial Court below.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution case is fully

supported by three eye witnesses to the occurrence who are wife, daughter and brother of the deceased. The fact remains that the occurrence had

taken place in the night at about 11:00 P.M. in front of the houses of the informant and the deceased and these witnesses are the only natural

witnesses to have supported the prosecution case. The accused persons are also the own brother and nephews of the informant, and there being no

evidence of any enmity between them, there appears to be no reason for falsely implicating the accused persons. The ocular evidence of these

witnesses is also supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-5 Dr. Umendra Prasad and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.2, which shows

that one sharp cut injury was found on the left parietal bone of the deceased and there was one lacerated wound on the head of the deceased causing

fracture of the parietal bone and these injuries had also caused laceration of the brain matter and accumulation of blood in the cranial cavity. The

injuries inflicted upon the deceased were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. There are some minor discrepancies in the evidence of

the witnesses, which is absolutely normal, taking into account the background of these witnesses, but there is nothing in their cross-examinations to

doubt the testimony of these eye-witnesses. We are of the considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against all the

three accused persons, 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.

For the foregoing reasons, the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 13th July, 2006 and Order of sentence dated 19th of July, 2006, passed by

the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 152 of 2005, convicting and sentencing the appellants Binod Sinku,

Sunil Sinku and Sangram Sinku, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby, affirmed. The appellant Sunil Sinku is already

in custody, undergoing the sentence. The appellants Binod Sinku and Sangram Sinku are on bail. Their bails are cancelled and they are directed to

surrender in the Court below forthwith, for serving out the sentence passed by the Trial Court below. The Trial Court below is also directed to issue

processes forthwith, compelling the surrender / production of these appellants for serving out the sentence.Â

We find from the record that P.W.-2 Budhni Kui is the victim of the crime, and she needs to be duly compensated under the Victim Compensation

Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to

take appropriate steps in consultation with the Secretary of the concerned DLSA, so that P.W.-2 Budhni Kui may be given due compensation at an

early date. Let a copy of this Judgement be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful.

We do not find any merit in both these appeals, which are, accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court

concerned forthwith, along with a copy this Judgment.Â