Dhuma Soren vs The State of Jharkhand

The appellant was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of Sanjhala @ Lathe Soren and his wife Tala Kundi Marandi. The court having found the appellant guilty for the said charge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s. 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 28.06.2003 passed in Sessions Case No. 251 of 2001 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life vide order dated 28.06.2003.

It is the case of the prosecution as has been made out by the informant-Hopna Soren, P.W. 6, in his fardbeyan (Ext. 3) is that while the deceased Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren and his wife Tala Kundi Marandi had gone to forest for bringing fire woods, this appellant, younger brother of the deceased Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren, committed murder of both the persons by cutting them through axe and chebni (a sharp cutting weapon) as the appellant, Dhuma Soren was suspecting that on account of witchcraft being played by Tala Kundi Marandi, he used to remain sick.

It appears that one Guchhu Hansda, P.W. 4, who had climbed on a date tree for taking out toddy and the other one Kona Hembrom, P.W. 5, was cutting Semal tree they saw this appellant assaulting first to his brother Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren by kulhari and chebni and then saw assaulting Tala Kundi Marandi, the wife of the Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren with chebni and kulhari. Both of them after seeing the appellant cutting both the persons came rushing to village where they informed about the occurrence to P.W. 9-Jarman Marandi and P.W. 10-Mandal Murmu. Meanwhile, Ashif Beg, P.W. 11, Officer Incharge of Borio Police Station received an information that two persons have been killed near village Basco Jharra. He entered such information in the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence. When he came to the place of occurrence, he did find the dead body of Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren which was identified by Dhumal Soren and Hopna Soren, P.W. 6. The I.O. did find the dead body of Tala Kundi Marandi slightly away from the dead body of her husband. There at the place of occurrence, the I.O. recorded the fardbeyan of the informant-Hopna Soren, P.W. 6.

On the basis of which a case was lodged and a First Information Report (Ext. 4) was drawn. The I.O. himself took up the investigation during which he held inquest on the dead bodies of both the persons and then sent the dead bodies for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Basant Kumar Sah (P.W. 1), who upon holding autopsy on the dead body of Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren did find following injuries:-

i. Lacerated wound on left leg below knee. There is laceration of skin, muscles and vessels. Both Tibia and Fibula bone fractured, size 6" x 3" x bone deep.

ii. Lacerated wound on left shoulder 2" x 1 1/2" x muscle deep.

iii. Lacerated wound on upper left arm 2" x 1 1/2" x muscle deep.

iv. Lacerated wound on left wrist 2 1/2" x 2" x muscle deep.

v. Lacerated would on left side face 2" x 1/4" x muscle deep.

vi. Lacerated wound on right side upper lip 1" x 1/2" x muscle deep.

vii. Lacerated wound near right ear 3" x 1" x bone deep causing fracture of right temporal bone.

The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext. 1) with an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above mentioned injuries caused by Kulhari. The said Doctor also held autopsy on the dead body of Tala Kundi Marandi and did find following injuries:

i. Sharp cutting injury on the neck, extending from back of the neck to the lower part of chin, right side size 6 1/2" x 4" x bone deep.

The skin, vessels, muscles are found lacerated with cutting of cervical vertebra.

ii. Lacerated wound on right shoulder 3 1/2" x 2" x muscle deep.

iii. Lacerated wound near left ear on the face 2" x 1 1/2" x muscle deep.

The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext. 1/1) with an opinion that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage as a result of above mentioned injuries caused by axe as well as chebni.

Meanwhile, the 1.0 recorded the statements of the witnesses and did recover axe and also chebni having blood mark over it from the heap of hay from the house of Barka Hembrom at the instance of this appellant. Those weapons were seized by the I.O. under the seizure list (Ext. 5). On completion of investigation, when the charge sheet was submitted, cognizance of the offence was taken against the appellant. In due course, when the case was committed to the court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial during which prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Of them P.W. 4-Guchhu Hansda and P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom are the eye witnesses who testified that they saw the appellant cutting both the persons. Thereupon, both of them came rushing to the village where they informed about it to P.W. 9-Jarman Marandi, who has also said about this fact in his evidence. P.W. 10-Mandal Murmu though has testified that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 disclosed about two persons being done to death but he in his evidence has not said that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had disclosed the name of the assailant to him. P.W. 2-Jeetai Hembrom and P.W. 3-Barka Hembrom are the witnesses who did testify that one axe and chebni having blood mark over it had been recovered from heap of hay from the verandah of Barka Hembrom. However, according to the I.O. said weapons had been recovered at the instance of the appellant from the verandah of Barka Hembrom, P.W. 3.

Upon closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under section 313 of Cr.P.C. over the incriminating material/evidence appearing against the appellant, the appellant denied. Thereupon, the trial court having placed its reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses P.W. 4-Guchhu Hansda and P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom getting corroboration from the medical evidence and also from the circumstances that the weapons used in the commission of offence was recovered at the instance of this appellant, did find the appellant guilty and accordingly recorded the order of conviction and sentence which is under challenge.

Mrs. Nalini Jha, appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that the informant P.W. 6-Hopna Soren though has stated that it was the appellant who has committed murder of the deceased but he has not disclosed about the source from which he came to know and thereby no importance can be attached to the evidence of the informant. Further, it was submitted that though P.W. 4-Guchhu Hansda and P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom have claimed to have seen the appellant committing murder of both the persons but according to P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom as has been testified in the cross examination that it was dark and in that event it would not be possible for both of them to identify the appellant as the place from where they claimed to have seen was quite away from the place where the appellant is said to have assaulted the deceased and thereby the testimonies of both the witnesses are not worth reliable but the trial court did not take into account this aspect of the matter in right perspective and thereby committed illegality in recording the order of conviction and sentence against the appellant and hence it is fit to be set aside.

As against this, Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Deb, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of both the eye witnesses P.W. 4-Guchhu Hansda and P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom who appear to be the independent witnesses and their testimonies get corroboration from the medical evidence.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that the prosecution came with the case that while P.W. 4-Guchhu Hansda was taking out toddy by climbing up on a date tree and P.W. 5-Kona Hembrom was cutting semal tree, they saw this appellant assaulting his brother Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren with kulhari and then the appellant inflicted injuries with kulhari as well as chebni (a kind of sharp cutting weapons) to Tala Kundi Marandi, wife of Sanjhla, causing several injuries resulting into their death. Both of them after seeing the occurrence rushed to village and then informed about the occurrence to P.W. 9-Jarman Marandi as well to P.W. 10 Asif Beg but according to P.W. 10 they had not disclosed the name of the assailant. It be stated that P.W. 10, though has testified that P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 had not disclosed the name of the appellant but P.W. 9 has testified that the name of the appellant had been disclosed to him by the P.W. 4 and P.W. 5. Under the circumstances even if P.W. 10 did not disclose the name of the appellant, it hardly affects the case of the prosecution in the facts and circumstances, the testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 get corroboration from the of the case that medical evidence as the doctor has found injuries on the persons of Sanjhla @ Lathe Soren being caused by axe whereas the injuries on the person of the deceased Tala Kundi Marandi being caused by axe and chebni. Furthermore, the weapons used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of this appellant under heap of straw which was recovered in presence of P.W. 2-Jeetai Hembrom, and P.W. 3-Barka Hembrom. It be also recorded that P.W. 5-Hopna Soren in his cross examination though has testified that darkness at the time of occurrence had started setting in but if we will take into account the evidence of other witnesses P.W. 4 and even P.W. 9 it would appear that it was still bright. Under the circumstances, there has been no reason to discard the testimonies of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 whose evidence gets corroboration from the medical evidence and also from the other circumstances stated above.

Under the circumstances, we do find that the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and hence it is, hereby, affirmed.

In the result, this appeal stands dismissed.