AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Both the appellants stand convicted for the offences u/s 302/34, IPC and sentenced to R.I., for life on trial by the trial Court for committing the murder of Sheolal Pahan.
This Sheolal Pahan had died of the following injuries, as per Dr. A.K. Choudhary, P.W. 11, who conducted autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased on 15.6.1992 and proved the post-mortem report, Ext. 7:
Incised wound: 5 x 1 1/2 cm. x bone deep over the back of neck situated tremulously cutting the soft issue and 3rd cervical vertebra including spinal cord with infiltration of blood.
Stab wound : (i) 2 x 1 cm. cavity deep over lateral part of left abdomen situated 22 cm. below left nipple and 17 cm. left to midline. The weapon passes the left 9th. Intercostal space and enter into Spleen. There is presence of blood and blood clot in abdominal cavity.-(ii) 1�1/2 cm. � 1 1/2 cm. over lateral side of left abdomen situated 4 cm. above the proceeding injury. The track is confined to the wall only.
Opinion: (i) All injuries are ante-mortem.
(ii) Incised wounds caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and stab wound by sharp cutting cum pointed weapon.
(iii) Death is due to above noted injuries.
(iv) Time since death 18 to 36 hrs. from the time of P.M. examination.
The injuries were from the weapon like Tangi and Chhura.
The date of the occurrence as per the fardbeyan is 14 June, 1992 and the time of occurrence is 7-8 a.m. The identity of the dead-body of Sheolal Pahan is not at all in dispute.
According to the fardbeyan, Ext. 3 of Jagarnath Pahan P.W. 1 the prosecution case is that the informant (P.W. 1) along with his causin brother Sheolal Pahan (deceased) was returning back from village Garhatoli, P.S. Tatasilway, District Ranchi, after witnessing a fair known as "Jagran Mela" and when he was about to reach his house Haslatoli at about 7 a.m. and when reached near the house of Baku Mahto of Kuriatoli of his own village, the accused Gondra Lakra and Sukra Lakra all of a sudden came from behind. Accused Gondra Lakra was having a Tangi in his hand, whereas Sukra Lakra was having a knife. Both the accused pushed the deceased Sheolal Pahan from behind and made him to fell on the ground. Thereafter, the accused Gondra Lakra gave Tangi blow on the neck, whereas accused Sukra Lakra gave knife blow to Sheolal Pahan, who succumbed to the injuries on the spot itself. On hulla being raised by the informant, the inhabitants of nearby came and both the accused person fled away. No reason of causing death was known to the informant till then. This fardbeyan bears the signature of Sukhram Pahan, P.W. 2, Ext. 1/1 in whose presence the fardbeyan was recorded. A case was registered, vide Ext. 3, and on that basis a formal FIR was drawn. It transpires that during the investigation, an inquest report, Ext. 5, was prepared in presence of the witnesses, Nakul Mahto and Gopal Munda, who signed the inquest report vide Ext. 1/4 and 1/5. This Ext. shows that the dead-body was found in the village, Khadiatoli, on the way to Susuki. It also transpires that some blood stained soil was also seized, Ext. 1/2, from that place in presence of Sukhram Pahan, P.W. 2. Deven Pahan (not examined) and the seizure list has been marked as Ext. 6. After submission of the charge-sheet cognizance was taken and the case was committed to sessions.
The defencs version of the case as appearing from the trend of the cross-examination as also the statements of the appellants u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is the denial of the occurrence and false implication. The appellants entered into defence and 2 D.Ws. were also examined on their behalf to show that in the prior night of the occurrence, they had also gone to Jagran Mela where some quarrel occurred between Sheolal and others. They had said that Sheolal and both the appellants were in the Mela along with the D.Ws. in the night, but they have not made any statement in this regard before the police, rather they have also not stated this fact to the informant of the case.
The fate of this case depends only on the determination of the two points-(i) whether P.W. 1 Jagarnath Pahan is an eye-witness of the occurrence and whether the conviction can be sustained on his sole testimony and (ii) whether in the absence of any motive can there by any conviction.
During the course of argument, the learned Counsel for appellants argued that as a number of witnesses, i.e. P.W. 1, Jagarnath Pahan, informant, P.W. 2 Sukram Pahan, P.W. 3 Lain Pahan, P.W. 4 Debnath Pahan, P.W. 5 Kumari, were examined in chief on the same day, so the defence had no reasonable opportunity to cross-examine them properly. On perusal of the record of the trial Court, we find that these witnesses had appeared on the same day and they were examined in chief in presence of accused persons and the Court waited for the appearance of the learned Defence Counsel, so that they might be cross-examined, but when the defence Counsel did not appear they were discharged. But subsequently, a recall petition was filed on the same day which we allowed and all the witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined and the learned Defence Counsel cross-examined each of them. In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not agree with this argument of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the defence had no reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and the appellant had been prejudiced.
The next argument was that due to non-examination of the I.O., the defence was prejudiced.
We find that one of the IDs., P.W. 10, Kedar Nath Dubey, has been examined, but his role was limited to the recording of the fardbeyan and instituting the FIR. The real I.O. Ramashish Singh has not been examined. But the defence has not been able to make out any case of any prejudice caused to the defence because of the non-examination of that I.O. In absence of any specific prejudice being alleged, we hold that the non-examination of the I.O. is not going to hit the prosecution case. Now coming to the prosecution evidence, we find that P.W. 1 is the only eye-witness of the occurrence. He is the cousin brother of the deceased. According to him, he was coming from Jagran Mela. Even D.Ws. 1 and 2 have accepted this versions that there was Jagaran Mela in which the had also gone to participate and in that Mela, they met Jagarnath Pahan and Shukra Lakra. Thus, the presence of this witness along with Sheolal Pahan (deceased) in the Jagaran Mela is proved beyond doubt and when, therefore, this witness says that in the morning he was returning back along with Sheolal Pahan, deceased, then there is no reason to disbelieve him, particularly, when the inquest report shows that the dead-body was found there. This witness further says that these two appellants suddenly appeared and Gandura Lakra hit the deceased by a Tangi on his (Sheolal) neck and Sukra Lakra started assaulting him by Chhura, here we pause to see what he actually says. He says:
Gogra Lakra Tangi Se Gardan Par Mara, Tatha Sukra Chhura se Marne Laga.
From the aforesaid evidence of the said witness, there should be only one injury on neck but there will definitely be more injuries than one by Chhura. When we look at the medical evidence, which has already been referred to, we find that the Doctor found the injuries by Tangi on the neck and stab injuries numbering two, on the abdominal area. This medical evidence fully corroborates this ocular account of the occurrence by the P.W. 1. We would like to refer to the evidence of P.W. 2, who had arrived at the P.O. soon after the occurrence after he had received information with regard to the occurrence, in which he said that he saw the injury on the neck as well as on the stomach of the deceased. This further corroborates the medical evidence. Lallu Pahan, P.W. 3, Sukhram Pahan, P.W. 2 who had arrived at the P.O. on the information received from jagarnath Pahan P.W. 1 and they had seen the dead-body and the aforesaid injuries on the deceased and Jagarnath Pahan had told them soon after the occurrence, which is admissible and reliable u/s 8 of the Evidence Act, that they were the assailants who caused the injuries.
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, referring our attention to the evidence of Manto Devi, P.W. 9, said that there were certain blood stain on the clothes of Jagarnath Pahan (P.W. 1) and wanted to impress upon us that it was the informant, who himself killed the deceased so that his share in property may be enlarged.
No evidence has been led on the point that due to the death of Sheolal (deceased), the informant would be benefited. Therefore, the conjecturing argument neither creates doubts about the prosecution case, nor it does discredit the P.W. 1 as eye-witness. Thus, it is proved that the P.W. 1 was present at the P.O. when the alleged occurrence had taken place and so there was some blood stains on the clothes of P.W. 1. Thus, we hold that the P.W. 1 is the eye-witness of the occurrence and he has no motive to depose falsely against the appellants.
So far the question of motive is concerned, in the face of the direct evidence of the eye-witness from whom nothing damaging to the prosecution has been brought or elicited in the cross-examination, no much scope for establishing the motive is necessary.
In the result, we come to the finding that P.W. 1 is the eye-witness and his oral testimony is fully supported by the medical evidence and that from the evidence of other two P.Ws. 2 and 3, who assembled at the P.O. after receiving the information from P.W. 1, they saw the deceased in injured condition and also came to know the names of the assailants from the informant soon after the occurrence and that the blood stains soil was seized, which further goes to corroborate the prosecution case. Therefore, we hold that there is no illegality or in the judgment of the learned Court below in relying upon the single eye-witness of the occurrence, when there is no motive on his part to falsely implicate the accused-appellants. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.