Ghuran Gonr vs State of Bihar

M.Y. Eqbal, J.—This appeal, by the sole Appellant, is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22nd June, 92 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 244/89 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 171/89, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for life imprisonment for an offence u/s 302 IPC.

The prosecution case is that on 28.6.89 the informant Mangri Gorin had gone to Dumar Tanr situated at village Konmerla Murgi Kone, P.S. Jaldega, District Gumla to pick up grass as Gora Crop was grown up. The deceased Fulmani Gorin and Ghurni Gorin @ Langri were with the informant. While they were engaged in picking up grass the accused Appellant armed with Balua came there and caught hold the hair of Fulmani Gorin and told that she is a witch and therefore, he would kill her. The deceased Fulmani Gorin requested the Appellant not to kill her as she has done nothing. However, she escaped from the clutch of the Appellant but the Appellant chased her and caught hold her hair and assaulted with Balua in the neck of the deceased as a result of which she fell down and thereafter the Appellant mercilessly gave Balua blow twice or thrice on the neck of the deceased and fled away with the arm. Fulmani Gorin died at the spot. The informant and Ghurni Gorin @ Langri, who had seen the occurrence with their naked eyes, could not do anything to save the life of the deceased due to fear. Thereafter both of them went to the village and Mangri Gorin told her husband Aghan Gonr about the occurrence as the deceased was the mother of Aghan Gonr. Thereafter the people assembled there and went to the place of occurrence and found that Fulmani Gorin was lying dead on the ground and they also found sharp cutting injury on her neck. In the next morning the informant''s husband alongwith others went to the police station and informed about the occurrence. The Officer Incharge of Jaldega Police Station visited the place of occurrence and recorded the fard beyan of the informant Mangri Gorin upon which the case was registered and dead body was seized and sent for post mortem. Thereafter a formal FIR was drawn and after completion of investigation the police submitted chargesheet in the Court of SDJM Simdega. The SDJM Simdega, after taking cognizance, transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate for commitment. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions.

The Appellant was charged u/s 302 IPC for committing the murder. The Appellant totally denied the charges. It was submitted that Dumar Tanr belongs to the Appellant and he used to cultivate the same and as there was enmity with the prosecution witnesses they in connivance with each other falsely implicated the Appellant in this case so that the witnesses may remain in possession of Dumar Tanr. However, no defense witnesses have been examined on behalf of the defense. The Court of Sessions, after recording the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, found the Appellant guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC and convicted and sentenced the Appellant to undergo imprisonment for life by the impugned judgment.

The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses including the Officer Incharge and the Doctor, who conducted the post mortem. P.W. 1 is Narain Mahto, who has proved the FIR which is marked as Ext. 1. P.W. 2 Mahesh Baraik, who is a formal witness, proved the seizure list (Ext.2). P.W. 2 is also a formal witness, who proved the inquest report, which is Ext. 3. The Doctor was examined as P.W. 4, who has deposed that he conducted the post-mortem on the relevant date while he was posted as Civil Assistant Surgeon at Sub divisional Hospital, Simdega. On examination of the dead body of Fulmani Gorin, the following injuries were found as evident from the post mortem report:

(i) Incised wound 21/2" x 2" bone deep on the occipital bone incirding (sic) occipital proturberence.

(ii) Incised wound 2" x 11/2", cutting bone 1" above 7th Cervical Vertebera on the back of neck.

(iii) Incised wound cutting bone on the left shoulder joint.

(iv) On opening the neck the fifth cervical vertebera was found to be fractured.

(v) On opening the left shoulder joint, the acromios process of left scaple is found fractured. All the in- juries are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting substance i.e. Balua. Injury No. 2 is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Age 36 to 48 hours from this P.M. He prepared the P.M. report and further he has proved his P.M. report which is marked Ext. 4.

The next prosecution witness is P.W. 5, Ghurni Kumari, who is also known as Langri. She has narrated the entire facts and she had seen at the time of occurrence. She deposed that on the date of occurrence she had gone to pick up grass from Dumar Tanr alongwith the deceased Fulmani Gorin and Mangri Gorin. In the meantime the Appellant accused came there with Balua and told Fulmani Gorin that he would kill her as she is a witch but Fulmani Gorin requested him not to kill her. The Appellant caught her but she escaped from there and fled away. However, the Appellant chased her and caught her hair again and gave a Farsa blow in her neck, due to which she fell down on the ground and thereafter the Appellant again gave Balua blow on the neck of the deceased, due to which she died at the spot and thereafter the Appellant fled away. The said witness then stated that she went to her house and narrated the entire occurrence to her brother. In her cross-examination she admitted that she has made statement before the police about the occurrence. She further stated that there was none except her, informant and the deceased. According to her, she was in the middle at the time of picking up the grass and at that time the deceased Fulmani Gorin was in the eastern portion of Tanr and from east the Appellant had gone there. She very categorically stated that she had seen the Appellant coming with Balua at the spot and when he caught hold the hair of the deceased she was standing with the informant Mangri. She further stated that neither she nor the informant Mangri tried to save the life of Fulmani Gorin as they were afraid. The said witness further stated that when the deceased fled away from the clutch of the Appellant the Appellant chased her and killed her brutally. She further stated that after the occurrence she went near the dead body and found the injury on the neck of the deceased. She admitted that the Appellant and Sadhu are Bhaiyad and there is enmity in respect of the land.

The next witness P.W. 6 is the informant Mangri Gorin. She also narrated the entire occurrence and deposed that on the date of occurrence she had gone to pick up grass alongwith her mother-in-law Fulmani Gorin and Ghurni Gorin. While they were engaged in picking up the grass from the field the Appellant Ghuran Gonr came with Balua and caught hold hair of Fulmani Gorin and told that he would kill her because she is a witch. The deceased Fulmani Gorin requested the Appellant not to kill her and succeeded to escape from his clutch but the Appellant chased her and again caught hold her hair and gave Balua blow on her neck, due to which she died at the spot.

The Appellant then fled away. The informant further stated that she immediately returned to her house and informed her husband about the occurrence and also to the village people. In the next morning the police came to the village where her fardbeyan was recorded. In cross examination she has admitted that she had informed her husband about the occurrence and on the next day her husband had gone to the police station and thereafter the police visited the place of occurrence. She denied that the deceased Fulmani Gorin was a witch and there was any quarrel on that point. She then stated that Appellant Ghuran Gonr had come to the place of occurrence from eastern side and she had seen him coming out from his house with Balua. In the cross-examination she further reiterated the entire occurrence.

P.W. 7, Sadhu Manjhi @ Gonr deposed that on the date of occurrence when he returned in the evening to his house with cattle then her sister Ghurni Gorin (P.W. 5) informed him about the occurrence. On hearing the same from P.W. 5 he immediately went to the place of occurrence and found that the dead body of Fulmani Gorin was lying on the ground. On the next day he alongwith Aghan Gonr and other persons of the village went to the police station and informed about the occurrence. Police came to the village and recorded the statement of Mangri Gorin. He further deposed that the police seized blood stained soil from the place of occurrence and prepared the seizure list in which he put his LTI as a witness. In cross-examination this witness also reiterated the same thing and nothing new has come out from his cross examination.

P.W. 8, Aghan Manjhi @ Gonr is the husband of the informant. He deposed that on the date of occurrence when he returned to his house in the evening his wife (P.W. 6) told him that the Appellant Ghuran Gonr has killed his mother. On this information he informed the villagers about the occurrence and went to the place of occurrence and found that her mother was lying dead. On the next day police came there and fardbeyan of Mangri Gorin was recorded. The police also prepared inquest report of the dead body of the deceased in his presence where he put his LTI as a witness. In cross-examination he deposed that his wife told him about the occurrence in presence of other witnesses. He further stated that he had visited the place of occurrence alongwith other co-villagers.

It appears that P.W. 9, Budhu Gonr corroborated the evidence of P.Ws. 7 and 8 and stated that P.W. 6 had informed him about the murder of her mother-in-law by the Appellant Ghuran Gonr and later on he went to the place of occurrence and found the dead body lying there. He further stated that he is the witness to the Inquest report prepared by the police.

Similarly, P.W. 10, Bhade Gonr and P.W. 11, Aghnu Kandulane in their evidence stated that at about 4 to 5 PM when they were in their house Mangri Gorin came and informed that the Appellant had killed her mother-in-law with Balua. They further stated that they went to the place of occurrence and saw the dead body of Fulmani Gorin.

P.W. 13, Satyendra Prasad is the Investigating Officer of the case. In his evidence he stated that on the relevant date he was posted as Officer-Incharge of Jaldega Police Station and on the same day he received a separate information about the murder of Fulmani Gorin by the Appellant. On this information entry was made in station diary and he rushed to the place of occurrence and on reaching the place of occurrence he found the dead body of Fulmani Gorin lying on the ground. He further deposed that he recorded the statement of the informant Mangri Gorin and registered a case against the Appellant and took up the investigation. This witness proved the fard beyan, which is Ext. 5. He further stated about the place of occurrence and distance from the village etc. This witness proved the seizure list and inquest report of the dead body and further deposed that after preparing the report he sent the dead body to Simdega for post-mortem. After investigation he submitted the chargesheet against the Appellant. In cross-examination he stated that he did not write khata number, plot number etc. of the place of occurrence and further did not compare the place of occurrence with the village map.

After analysing the entire evidences of the prosecution witnesses the learned Sessions Judge came to a positive finding that the deceased Fulmani Gorin died due to the injury caused on her neck by a sharp cutting weapon and it is the Appellant who had given several Balua blows on the neck of the deceased. The Sessions Court came to the conclusion that the guilt of the Appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly by the impugned judgment he convicted the Appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

Mr. Gopal Sahu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has drawn our attention to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and pointed out the contradiction in the evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6 and 7 and submitted that their evidence is not fit to be relied upon. Learned Counsel firstly submitted that according to P.W. 5 the place of occurrence is 100 yards from her house and she further deposed that there was none except her at the time of occurrence. According to this witness the place of occurrence is Kathar Bhalwa Tanr, while according to the. inquest report the place of occurrence is Dumar Tanr. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned Counsel. P.Ws. 5 and 6 in their evidence clearly deposed that the occurrence took place at Dumar Tanr and the Investigating Officer, who is P.W. 13, has also clearly stated in his evidence that he found the dead body of the deceased in a Tanr which is known as ''Dumar Tanr''. From the evidences of the witnesses it has been clearly established that the occurrence had taken place at Dumar Tanr which is near to the house of the Appellant and the witnesses. Mr. Sahu further pointed out some contradictions in the evidence of other witnesses. As noticed above P.Ws. 5 and 6, who had seen the occurrence with naked eyes, have deposed in one breath that it was the Appellant who came on the spot with Balua, caught hold the hair of the deceased and gave a Farsa blow on the neck of the deceased. When the deceased fell down the accused Appellant gave a further Balua blow on the neck of the deceased and then fled away. Immediately these two witnesses went near the victim and found her lying dead on the ground. These P.Ws. 5 and 6 immediately rushed to their house and informed their husband and brother respectively about the occurrence. The husband and brother of P.Ws. 5 and 6, who are P.Ws. 7 and 8, came on the spot and found the deceased lying dead. P.Ws. 7 and 8 and also other persons, who came on the spot, have corroborated the entire evidence of P.Ws. 5 and 6. The minor discrepancy and contradictions pointed out by the learned Counsel are minor in nature and in my opinion these discrepancies or variance in the evidence does not make the prosecution case doubtful rather it lend credential to the deposition of the witnesses.

It is well settled that in the deposition of the witnesses there are always normal discrepancies however, honest and truthful they may be. Such discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence, and the like. It is equally well settled that when the discrepancies were comparatively of a minor character and did not go to the root of prosecution story, they need not be given undue importance. Recently the Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj and Another, observed as follows:

In support of the impugned judgment the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents mainly attempted to point out some discrepancies in the statement of the prosecutrix and other witnesses for discrediting the prosecution version. Discrepancy has to be distinguished from contradiction. Whereas contradiction in the statement of the witness is fatal for the case, minor discrepancy or variance in evidence will not make the prosecution''s case doubtful. The normal course of the human conduct would be that while narrating a particular incident there may occur minor discrepancies, such discrepancies in law may render credential to the deposition. Parrot-like statements are disfavoured by the Courts. In order to ascertain as to whether the discrepancy pointed out was minor or not or the same amounted to contradiction, regard is required to be had to the circumstance of the case by keeping in view the social status of the witnesses and environment in which such witness was making the statement.

As noticed above, from perusal the evidence it appears that the deceased was murdered as her dead body was lying in the Dumar Tanr and here were cut injuries on the neck. In other words it is the admitted fact that she died not a natural death rather she was killed. From the side of the prosecution all the material witnesses including the two eye-witnesses have proved that it was the Appellant who gave Farsa blow on the neck of the deceased which resulted in her death. The learned Sessions Judge has taken notice of all facts and circumstances and come to a conclusion that the guilt of the Appellant has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. Although the defense tried to make out a case of land dispute but from the evidence it has been proved that the Appellant killed the deceased saying her a witch. It is, therefore, evident that there was a clear motive of the Appellant for killing the deceased.

Having regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case and on consideration of the evidence discussed above, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge. This appeal has, therefore, no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.

A.K. Prasad, J.

I agree.