Budinath Baskey, Buddhinath Baskey vs State of Jharkhand

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

The appellants are aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 17th March, 2007 and Order of sentence dated 20th March, 2007,

passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. No. 177 of 2006, whereby, both the appellants have been found guilty and

convicted for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellants have been

sentenced to undergo R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the said offence.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Mathial Marandi, recorded on 14.07.2006 at about 04:30 P.M., at

village Salgapara, P.S. Pakuria, District Pakur, near the dead body of the deceased Shiv Charan Soren. It is stated in the fardbeyan that on 14.07.2006

at about 08:00 A.M., the informant was ploughing his field, situated at the distance of about 400 yards from the field of the deceased. The

deceased               Shiv Charan Soren was also ploughing his field. In the meantime, both the accused persons, namely,

Buddhinath Baskey and Sona Ram Baskey came there and both of them started assaulting the deceased with lathi. They also dragged the deceased

assaulting him, towards a mahua tree, belonging to Deputy Hansda and they continued assaulting the deceased by lathi. The informant and his wife

and other persons also ran to save the deceased but the accused persons threatened them. The wife of the deceased also came and saw the

occurrence. After assaulting the deceased, the accused persons fled away. The deceased died at the spot, and there were several marks of assault by

lathi on the dead body of the deceased. It is stated in the fardbeyan that both the accused persons were trying to grab the land of Shiv Charan Soren,

due to which they had committed the murder of the deceased. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant, Pakuria P.S. Case No.28 of 2006,

corresponding to G.R. No.419 of 2006, was instituted against both the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, and investigation was taken up. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet in the case.

After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against both the accused persons for the offence under Sections 302 /

34 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,

eleven 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. No witness has been examined by the defence in this case. Â

P.W.-9 Mathial Marandi is the informant in the case. This witness has stated that the occurrence had taken place about six months ago on a Friday

at about 08:00 A.M. He was ploughing his own field and after two fields, Shiv Charan was also ploughing his own field. In the meantime,Â

Buddhinath Baskey and Sona Ram Baskey came there armed with lathi and started assaulting Shiv Charan Soren by lathi. The informant was

witnessing the occurrence from his own field and he saw that due to the assaults made by Sona Ram Baskey and Buddhinath Baskey, Shiv Charan

fell down on the ground. He rushed towards him to save him, but several persons were there and he could not save him. Thereafter, he informed

Ganesh Hembrom about the occurrence. He has stated that the accused persons had dragged the deceased towards the mahua tree, where Shiv

Charan had died. He has also stated that the wife of this witness Jayanti Tudu was also working with him and the wife of the deceased was also

working with the deceased, and both of them had also seen the occurrence. This witness has stated that the police had recorded his fardbeyan, upon

which he had put his signature, which on his identification, was marked Ext.1. The witnesses Jayanti Tudu, Marang Kui Murmu and Matru Soren had

also put their signatures / thumb impressions. He has identified both the accused persons in the Court. In his cross-examination, his attention was

drawn towards the statement given by him before the police, but that is not important in view of the fact that the contradiction of those statements has

not been taken from the I.O., and the statements do not relate to the assaults made by the accused persons upon the deceased. He has stated that the

deceased was the son of his sharhu and this witness was living as gharjamai at his in-laws’ place. The relationship between the accused and this

witness and the boundary of the place of occurrence, have been taken from this witness, which he has replied. He has stated that Shiv Charan Soren

was ploughing the land of his own share. He has denied the suggestion of giving false evidence.  Â

P.W.-1 Jayanti Tudu is the wife of the informant and P.W.-8Â Marang Kui Murmu is the wife of the deceased, and both these witnesses have

also fully supported the prosecution case as eye-witness to the occurrence in the same manner as stated by the informant, stating that at the time of

occurrence they were working in their respective fields with their husband. They have stated that both the accused persons assaulted the deceased by

lathi, causing his death at the spot. They have identified the accused persons in the Court. P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu, however, could not name one

accused properly, in the Court, but she has specifically identified both the accused persons stating that they had assaulted her husband to death. Her

attention was also drawn towards some of her statements made before the police, but it is not at all important as the necessary contradiction has not

been taken from the I.O. She has stated that she had no child and she has denied the suggestion that she was not present at the place of occurrence

and had falsely implicated the accused persons. In her cross-examination P.W.-1 Jayanti Tudu has stated that the deceased was the son of her cousin

sister. To the Court's question she has replied that she has no relationship with the accused persons.

P.W.-5 Tanti Murmu and P.W.-6 Roshan Hembrom have also supported the prosecution case stating that they were also ploughing their fields near

the place of occurrence and Shiv Charan was ploughing his own field. They have supported the prosecution case that both these witnesses had

assaulted the deceased by lathi causing his death. They have also identified the accused persons in the Court. There is nothing of much importance in

their cross-examinations.   Â

P.W.-2 Deputy Hansda, P.W.-3 Babu Ram Soren, P.W.-4Â Ganesh Hembrom and P.W.-7 Matru Soren have supported the prosecution case as

hearsay witnesses, stating that upon getting the information they went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body. They were informed about

the occurrence that both these accused persons had assaulted the deceased to death. P.W.-3 Babu Ram Soren and P.W.-4 Ganesh Hembrom have

stated that they were informed about the occurrence by the informant, upon which they had gone to the place of occurrence and had seen the dead

body.Â

P.W.-11 is Dr. Bindu Bhushan Prasad, who had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 15.07.2006, and had

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

Ante-mortem injury :-

(i) Lacerated injury of 1â€​ x ½â€​ x bone deep on the front of left leg with compound fracture of Tibia and Fibula.

(ii) Lacerated injury of 2†x 1†x bone deep in front of right leg with compound fracture of Tibia and Fibula. (iii) Multiple stick marks on the back of

the body.

(iv) Traumatic swelling of 3â€​ x 2â€​ on the back of scalp with fracture of occipital bone.Â

On Opening the skull :-

 Occipital bone was fractured. Brain tissues and its membrane lacerated with blood.

On opening the chest wall :-

 Thoracic cavity was full of blood with fracture of fifth, sixth and seventh ribs of both sides of chest wall with injury of the lungs and the heart. On

opening the abdomen :-

 Stomach contained rice particles. Small and large intestine containing gas.  Spleen, liver, both kidney were pale. Bladder was empty.Â

 This witness has stated that the cause of death was due to severe internal and external hemorrhage and neurogenic shock following injury on chest

wall, scalp and leg by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Ext.-4.

P.W.-10 is Anjani Kumar Singh, the I.O. of the case. This witness has stated that on 14.07.2006 he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Pakuria

Police Station. On that date, at about 3.30 P.M., he got a rumour that someone was murdered at village Salgapara, which was entered as S.D. Entry

No. 263 dated 14.07.2006, and he proceeded towards the place of occurrence along with the police party. He recorded the fardbeyan of the informant

in the presence of the witnesses which he has identified to be in his pen and signature, and the same was marked Ext.-1/1. He has also proved the

formal F.I.R. to be in his pen and signature and the same was marked Ext.-2. He also prepared the inquest report of the dead body which also he has

proved and the same was marked Ext.-3. He recorded the re-statement of the informant and inspected the place of occurrence and he has given the

details of the agricultural field, where the dead body was found under a mahua tree, which was at a distance of about ten yards from the land of the

deceased. The land of the informant was situated at a distance of about              400 yards and the place of occurrence

was clearly visible from the land of the informant. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. He received the post-mortem report and has stated

that the case was supervised by the S.P. and Dy. S.P. in his presence. After completing the investigation, he had submitted the charge-sheet. This

witness has stated that there was land dispute between the accused persons and the deceased for which, on his report, a proceeding under Section

144 of the Cr.P.C., was also instituted. The accused persons had surrendered in the Court. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that there

was no blood spots at the place of occurrence, as there was only one bleeding injury on the dead body of the deceased, and the bleeding was not such

so that it would have fallen on the earth. He had also prepared the genealogy of the deceased and the informant, which he has detailed. He has denied

the suggestion of making faulty investigation.

The statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have denied the evidence against them.

Even the genesis of the occurrence being the land dispute, was also put to both the accused, which they have denied. The accused persons have

denied the land dispute between them and have also denied the fact about the proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C. No defence evidence was

adduced in the case. On the basis of the evidence on record, both the accused appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court

below, 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, in as much as, the prosecution witnesses supporting the case, are highly interested witnesses and closely

related to the deceased. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in absence of any corroboration of the evidence by the independent witnesses,

their evidences cannot be relied upon. It is also submitted by learned counsel that since there was land dispute between the parties, the false

implication of the accused due to the land dispute cannot be ruled out. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts of this case, the accused appellants

ought to have been given at least the benefits of doubt.Â

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

occurrence, who were working in the nearby fields and they are natural witnesses to the occurrence. It is submitted by learned counsel that the ocular

evidence of the eye witnesses is fully supported by the medical evidence of P.W.-11 Dr. Bindu Bhushan Prasad and the post-mortem report proved

by him as Ext.-4, which clearly show that there were several      ante-mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased, sufficient to

cause death in the normal course. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the

accused appellants 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.Â

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that P.W.-1 Jayanti Tudu, P.W.-5 Tanti Murmu,

P.W.-6 Roshan Hembrom, P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu, the wife of the deceased and P.W.-9 Mathial Marandi, the informant of the case, have fully

supported the prosecution case as eye witness to the occurrence. All these eye witnesses including P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu, were working in their

respective fields and they had seen the occurrence. These witnesses have stated in an unequivocal terms that while the deceased was ploughing his

field, both the accused persons came there and started assaulting the deceased by lathi and when the deceased fell down, they dragged him towards

the mahua tree where the deceased died. These witnesses are the natural eye witnesses to the occurrence, and there is nothing in their  cross-

examination to discredit their testimony. Rather all these witnesses appear to be trustworthy witnesses. The hearsay witnesses, namely, P.W.-2Â

Deputy Hansda, P.W.-3 Babu Ram Soren, P.W.-4 Ganesh Hembrom and P.W.-7 Matru Soren have also supported the prosecution case as informed

to them and they had seen the dead body at the place of occurrence. The ocular evidence of these witnesses is fully corroborated by medical

evidence of P.W.-11 Dr. Bindu Bhushan Prasad and the post-mortem report proved by him as Ext.-4, which shows that several ante-mortem injuries

caused by lathi were found on the dead body of the deceased and the opening of the skull showed the fracture of the occipital bone and the brain

tissues and membrane were found lacerated with blood. On the opening of the chest wall, the entire thoracic cavity was found to be full of blood due

to the fracture of fifth, sixth and seventh ribs of both sides of chest wall, puncturing the lungs and the heart. These injuries clearly show that the

deceased was assaulted by both the accused with the intention to cause his death and the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause the death of a person. Though P.W.-10 Anjani Kumar Singh, the I.O. of the case, stated that about the land dispute between the accused

persons and the deceased and there was also a proceeding under Section 144 of the Cr.P.C., but there is no evidence on record that there was any

enmity between the eye witnesses to the occurrence, except P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu, being the wife of the deceased, and the accused persons.

Indeed, even the enmity with the deceased and the accused persons due to land dispute between them and the initiation of the proceeding under

Section 144 of the Cr. P.C., have been denied by both the accused in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We are of the

considered view that on the basis of the materials brought on record, the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against both the 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, worth interference by this Court.

In view of the aforementioned discussion, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 17th March, 2007, and Order

of sentence dated 20th March, 2007, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Pakur, in S.C. No. 177 of 2006, convicting and sentencing

the appellants Budinath Baskey @ Buddhinath Baskey and Sona Ram Baskey, for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

which, we hereby, affirm. Both the appellants are already in custody and they are undergoing the sentence.Â

Before parting with this Judgment, we must record that P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu is the victim of the crime and she should be adequately

compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. Accordingly, we direct the Member Secretary, Jharkhand

State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to take appropriate steps in this regard in consultation with the District Legal Services Authority of the

concerned district, so that adequate compensation is paid to the victim of crime P.W.-8 Marang Kui Murmu. Let a copy of this Judgment be sent to

the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful.Â

We do not find any merit in this appeal, and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned

forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.