Gumdi Banra vs State of Jharkhand

This appeal arises out of judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.5.2003 passed by Sri Satya N. Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 191 of 1998 (G.R. Case No. 25 of 1998) whereby the Appellant has been convicted u/s 302 of the Indian penal Code and accordingly sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The Appellant has also been convicted u/s 201 Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. However, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

Prosecution case, in short, as emerges from the written report dated 16.1.1998 of the informant Jishu Banra (PW3) is that on the previous day (15.1.1998) at about 7.30 p.m. he along with Kaira Banra, Mansingh Banra (PW2) (son of the deceased), and Badur Kabri, were corning from Asura Murgi Para to their village. At a distance of about 1/2 Km. from the village, two persons having swords in their hands quickly arrived from the side of the village Rango Basa and began to assault his cousin Kaira Banra (deceased) with sword. Then, the informant and Ors. tried to save Kaira Banra from the assailants, who were Bijoy Banra (absconder) and Gumdi Banra (Appellant). The informant and the others requested the assailants not to Ml Kaira Banra, but they did not hear and both of them took Kaira Banra at some distance and killed him. Thereafter, the informant and the others ran away out of fear and told about the occurrence to some of the villagers and the Munda of the village. In the morning, on the next day, they went to the place of occurrence and saw Kaira Banra lying dead. They told about the occurrence to Mchrai Banra (PW1), brother of the deceased and asked him to lodge information with the Police. It is stated that wife of Kaira Banra - Mini Banra (PW4) used to reside in the house of her maternal uncle (the Appellant) in spite of the objection raised by the deceased and due to this reason, he was lolled. Written report (Ext 3) was written by Shanakr Banra as stated to him by the informant (PW3), who signed on the same.

On the basis of the said fard bey an/written report of the informant, Mufassil Chaibasa PS Case No. 8 of 1998 was registered. After investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the Appellant. It appears that Bijoy Banra absconded and the Appellant faced the trial and convicted as aforesaid.

PW1 is one of the brothers of the deceased and he is a hearsay witness. PW2 Mansingh Banra is the son of the deceased and one of the eye witness. PW3 is Jishu Banra who is the brother of the deceased, is another eye witess. PW4 Mini Banra is the wife of the deceased who has been declared hostile. PW5 is Dr. Jawahar Khan who had conducted the post mortem on the dead body of the deceased. PW6 is formal witness.

Mr. R.C. Khatri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has not fully proved its case against the Appellant. He while assailing the conviction of the Appellant on various grounds, inter alia, submitted that the evidence of Pws 3 and 4 who are said to be eye witnesses, are not reliable nor the motive has been proved by the prosecution as to why the Appellant killed the deceased, who is his own "Bhagin Damad". Learned Counsel further contended that the other witnesses who accompanied PW2 and 3, the investigating officer of the case; and Shankar Banra who wrote the fard beyan (Ext 3) have not been examined.

On the other hand, learned Addl. PP supported the conviction and sentence of the Appellant.

We are not convinced with the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant. The eye witnesses are consistent in their depositions and there is No. reason to disbelieve their evidence. In view of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, it was not necessary for the prosecution to prove the motive. The post mortem report and the evidence of Dr. Jawahar Khan (PW5) fully corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses. Though PW4 was declared hostile, but she has admitted in her cross examination that the deceased along with others, including PWs 2 and 3, were returning together. Thus, the presence of PWs 2 and 3 is admitted even by PW4, who turned hostile. PW4 has not supported the prosecution case, apparently for the reason that she was brought up by the Appellant. The investigating officer could not be examined because he died during the trial. It was not necessary for the prosecution to examine all the witnesses who accompanied Pws 2 and 3 and the deceased. PW2 and 3 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. The doctor (PW5) has found 4 incised injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon on vital parts of the body of the deceased which were the cause of death of the deceased. The medical evidence fully supports the statements of PWs 2 and 3. Out of several persons, PWs 2 and 3 were examined as eye witnesses. Only because they are the son and the brother of the deceased, they cannot be said to be interested witnesses and on this ground, their evidence cannot be disbelieved or discredited.

After carefully going through the materials on the record and hearing the parties, in our view No. ground is made out for our interference with the order of conviction and sentence of the Appellant by the trial court. The appeal is devoid of merit and is fit to be dismissed.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.