Bundu @ Bundhu Purty@ Bandhu Purty vs State Of Jharkhand

Chandrashekhar, J

The sole appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction under section 302 IPC and section 449 IPC dated 03.07.2008 and the order of

sentence of R.I. for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under section 302 IPC and R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 449 IPC dated

05.07.2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2007.

The informant of this case, namely, Raimuni Purty is the wife of Dubrai Purty, the deceased. On the fateful day, on 14.06.2007, at about 6 p.m.,

Dubrai Purty was taking rest on a cot at the Varanda of Sona Ram Purty, a witness in this case. The informant has stated that it was drizzling in the

evening and she was cooking meal on her Varanda. Suddenly, the accused Bandhu Purty armed with Kulhari entered the house of Sona Ram Purty

and pulled her husband down and started assaulting him with Kulhari. Her husband Dubrai Purty died on the spot after sometime. When she raised

cries, several persons came there, however, the appellant managed to flee away. The informant has stated that the accused Bandhu Purty told that he

has taken revenge for the murder of his daughter. She has asserted that the appellant had previously also tried to assault her husband. On the basis of

fardbeyan of Raimuni Purty, Muffasil P.S. Case No. 89 of 2007 was registered under sections 302 and 449 IPC.

During the trial, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses; the informant is P.W. 8 and the Investigating Officer has been examined as P.W.9. The

prosecution witnesses-P.W. 1, P.W. 3 and P.W. 7 are witnesses to seizure list and the inquest report. P.W. 4 is the doctor who has conducted post-

mortem examination over the dead body of Dubrai Purty. The doctor has found the following injuries on Dubrai Purty:-

“(i) On left temporal region of head, a large lacerated wound was found. The dimension of the wound was 4â€​x3-1/2â€​x deep to bone.

(ii) A large lacerated wound on the right temporal region of head was found with dimension of 2â€​x1/2â€​x deep to bone.

Internal injury of the head subdural haematoma on both sides of the temporal region was found by the doctor.

During the trial, the prosecution has produced seizure list, post mortem report, inquest report, confessional statement of the appellant and FSL

report, to prove the charge framed against the appellant vide order dated 05.10.2007.

The learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa has recorded a finding that the prosecution has proved that the appellant has committed

murder of Dubrai Purty who was living in the house of Sona Ram Purty due to fear of the appellant and, as such, the prosecution has proved the

charge under section 302 IPC and section 449 IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.

Mrs. J. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case; (i) no independent witness has

proved the confessional statement of the accused, (ii) the seizure list witness, namely, Uday Purty has turned hostile, (iii) the co-villagers who are the

independent witnesses have turned hostile, and (iv) recovery of blood-stained Kulhari in absence of a report that it contains human blood is not

sufficient to hold the appellant guilty, would raise serious doubt on the appellant’s complicity in the crime and while so, the appellant is entitled for

benefit of doubt.

The informant has stated that on 14.06.2007, at about 6.30 p.m., in the evening she has seen the appellant assaulting her husband on the Varanda of

Sona Ram Purty. She has remembered the date of occurrence; it was a Thursday, during Rajasala festival when the appellant suddenly came to the

house of Sona Ram Purty and started assaulting her husband with Kulhari. She has further stated that her husband was living in the house of Sona

Ram Purty due to fear of the appellant who had previously tried to assault her husband with intention to kill him. During her cross-examination, she

has reiterated that the appellant threatened her husband and she had complained about it to Munda-Manki. She has further stated that it was a written

complaint filed in the court as well as to the police. The prosecution witness, namely, Saw Purty, son of the deceased, has stated that at the time when

the appellant assaulted his father in the house of Sona Ram Purty he was in his house and he has seen the appellant running away with blood-stained

Kulhari in his hand. He has also stated that he has seen blood- stains on the clothes of the appellant. The prosecution witness, namely, Gobhar Singh

Bodra-P.W. 7 has stated that he has seen the appellant with blood stains in his hands and legs. The police has recovered blood-stained Tangi

concealed in the roof of the appellant’s house.

The prosecution witnesses- P.W. 1, P.W. 5 and P.W. 6 have not supported the prosecution’s case and P.W. 3 has stated that the police has

obtained his signature on a plain paper, however, the informant as well as P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 have remained unshaken during their cross-examination

by the defence. Minor inconsistencies in their evidence, in our opinion, would not shake the foundation of the prosecution’s case. Recovery of the

blood-stained Tangi from the roof of the house of the appellant is an incriminating circumstance. Even without any serological report whether Tangi

contained human blood or not and failure of the Investigating Officer to seize clothes of the appellant, in view of the consistent evidence of the

informant supported by P.W. 2 and P.W. 7 and the contemporaneous documents prepared during the investigation would prove the prosecution’s

case. We find that a specific question was put to the appellant during his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. that he has been seen by the

prosecution witnesses running away from the house of Sona Ram Purty with a blood-stained Tangi and blood stains on his clothes. There is no

explanation coming forth from the appellant to these incriminating circumstances put to him in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. True,

explanation of an accused in his examination under section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be the basis to record his conviction, however, failure of the accused to

explain the incriminating circumstances, that immediately after the occurrence he has been found running away with a blood-stained Kulhari and P.W.

2 and P.W. 7 have found blood-stains on his cloth, would raise grave suspicion on his complicity in the crime [refer- “Munish Mubar V. State of

Haryanaâ€, (2012) 10 SCC 464]. The medical evidence led through Dr. Dhananjay Kumar Mishra is consistent with the prosecution’s case. The

Investigating Officer has proved the place of occurrence and the seizure made by him during the investigation, irrespective of some of the witnesses

turning hostile, would firmly establish the stratum of the prosecution’s case.

In view of the aforesaid evidences laid by the prosecution during the trial in Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2007, we are of the opinion that the

prosecution has proved the charge under section 302 IPC and section 449 IPC against the appellant. The judgment of conviction dated 03.07.2008

under section 302 IPC and under section 449 IPC and the order of sentence dated 05.07.2008 of R.I. for life and fine of Rs.20,000/- under section 302

IPC and R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- under section 449 IPC passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa in

Sessions Trial No. 234 of 2007 do not suffer from any infirmity.

Accordingly, Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1065 of 2008 is dismissed.

Let the lower court records be transmitted to the court concerned, forthwith