Hadi Ram Singh Sardar vs The State of Jharkhand

The sole appellant Hadi Ram Singh Sardar has challenged the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.1999 passed by

Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 398 of 1994 whereby and whereunder he has been convicted for the offence u/s 302

of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that on 24.02.1992 at about 11:00 A.M., the informant Hablu Murmu (P.W.-4) and his elder

brother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu (deceased) were going to village Gotultand on a bullock cart for bringing soil. It is further stated that when the

bullock cart reached in front of the house of appellant, Hadi Ram Singh Sardar (appellant) suddenly came out of his house and gave 5-6 farsa

blow on the deceased due to that deceased received injuries and died on the spot. It is further stated that on query made by informant, appellant

disclosed that the deceased had illicit relation with his wife and because of that the appellant killed him.

On the basis of aforesaid information the police instituted Chandil P.S. Case No. 24 of 1994 dated 24.02.1994 u/s 302 of the I.P.C. and took

up investigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the appellant u/s 302 of the I.P.C. Cognizance of the

offence u/s 302 was token and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Learned court below framed the charge and explained to the

accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution had examined altogether 08 witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also brought some documents on record and got

the same exhibited. Ext-1 Series - are the signatures of witnesses on Inquest Report, Seizure List, Fardbeyan and F.I.R., Ext-2 - is the

Postmortem Report, Ext-3 -is the fardbeyan, Fxt-4 - is the Inquest Report, Ext-5 - is the Seizure List. Learned court below after considering the

materials available on record convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforesaid. The present appeal has been filed assailing the impugned

judgment/order of the Court below.

Shri A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel for the appellant challenged the impugned judgment on various grounds. He submitted that from the joint

reading of statement of P.W.4 and P.W.-5, it is apparent that there is material contradiction on the point of manner of occurrence. He further

submitted that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the relatives of deceased and they are highly interested in the case of prosecution and in the absence of

corroboration from independent witness, it is not safe to convict the appellant on the testimony of aforesaid two witnesses. It is further submitted

that the seizure of farsa has not been proved properly. The said farsa has not been produced in court and no proper explanation has been given,

which cast a serious doubt on the case of prosecution. The prosecution has not been able to prove the motive of the case as well which also cast a

serious doubt on the case of the prosecution. He urged that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained in law.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. submitted that the evidences of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5, who are the eye-witness of the occurrence, find full

support from the medical evidence as well as from the physical finding of the I.O. The other prosecution witness including the independent

witnesses such as P.W.-l and P.W.-3 have supported and corroborated the statement of eye witnesses. There is no illegality or irregularity in the

impugned judgment warranting any interference by this Court.

Having heard the submissions, we have carefully examined the evidences available on record. P.W.-7 Dr. Lalan Choudhary has deposed that

on 25.02.1994, at about 11:30 A.M, he held post-mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Sona Ram Murmu and found nine incised

wound mostly on the neck, face and shoulder of the deceased. The Doctor has given opinion that the injuries are ante-morlem in nature and caused

by sharp cutting weapon like farsa and the cause of death was due to shock and hemorrhage. On perusal of cross-examination, we find that

nothing was elicited by the defence on which his testimony can be discarded. His evidence is wholly acceptable. In our considered opinion, the

prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased Sona Ram Murmu had died a homicidal death.

Now, the question rem; ins to be determined as to whether the appellant had any hand in the commission of present crime? On appraisal of the

evidence on record, we find that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are the eyewitnesses of the occurrence. P.W.-4 is the informant of this case and he was

present at the time of occurrence with the deceased. He deposed that on the dry of occurrence, ac about 11:00 A.M., he along with his elder

brother Sona Ram Murmu @ Bedgu was going for bringing soil on a bullock cart. He further deposed that the bullock cart was driven by his

brother and he was going in front of the said bullock cart. He further deposed that at that time itself, the appellant Hadi Ram Singh came out of his

house armed with a farsa and given 5-6 blow of farsa on the neck of his brother due to that his brother died. It is further stated that thereafter, the

appellant fled away and entered in his house. He had further stated that after the occurrence, he disclosed about the occurrence to his mother. He

had further stated that his sister-in-law had also witnessed the occurrence.

From perusal of Paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of deposition, we find that he had given a vivid description of manner of occurrence during the cross-

examination and there is nothing in these paragraphs on which his credibility can be doubted. At Paragraph No. 14, this witness had further stated

that he had no enmity with the appellant.

P.W.-5, Baishakhi Murmu, is the wife of the deceased. She stated that at the time of occurrence, she was keeping soil inside the house from

lane and her husband & ''Devar'' were bringing soil on a bullock cart and from there she saw that the appellant Hadi Ram was assaulting her

husband with farsa while her husband was of a bullock cart. She had also stated that at that time her brother-in-law (Dewar) was also present at

the place of occurrence. During the cross-examination, she stated that apart from herself and her Dewar, other villagers had also witnessed the

occurrence.

Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the First Information Report, the informant (P.W.-4) had nowhere stated that P.W.-5,

who is wife of deceased, had also seen the occurrence from her own eye. In this connection, it is well settled that First Information Report is not

the Encyclopedia of entire prosecution case and omission to state an important fact in the F.I.R. will not render the said fact out of arena of

consideration. The said fact can legally be considered along with other evidence for arriving at a rightful conclusion. Thus, only because the name of

P.W.-5 has not been given in the F.I.R. as an eye-witness, her evidence cannot be thrown over board. Thus, the aforesaid contention of learned

Counsel for the appellant is not worth acceptable.

It is further submitted that there is material contradiction in the evidence of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 with regard to the manner of occurrence.

Learned Counsel for the appellant had drawn our attention to the statement of P.W.4 at Paragraph No. 8 of his deposition where he had stated

that due to. the assault his brother (deceased) had faller on the bullock cart itself, whereas P.W.-5 at Paragraph No. 3 had stated that due to

assault her husband fell on the ground. The aforesaid contradiction, in our view, is trifling in nature, having no bearing on the case of prosecution.

Moreover, it appears that P.W.-5 in the cross-examination, at one place had categorically mentioned that her husband died on the bullock cart

itself. P.W.-5 is a rustic illiterate lady such contradictions in her statement are not unnatural.

The statements of P.W.4 and P.W.-5 find full support from the evidence of P.W.-l, Keshav Murmu, who appears to be a co-villager and

independent witness. He hat'' stated that after the occurrence, he came to the place of occurrence where the informant had disclosed that the

appellant Hadi Ram had assaulted the deceased. He had also stated that in his presence, the police had recovered a blood stained farsa from the

house of the appellant He has also proved his signature on the seizure list. The I.O. who has been examined in this case as P.W.-8, had also stated

at Paragraph-4 that he has seized the blood stained farsa from the house of appellant. In the cross-examination at Paragraph No. 9, the I.O. had

stated that he had seized the aforesaid ''farsa'' on the disclosure made by the appellant. Since the aforesaid statement of I.O. was given in course of

the cross-examination, the same remain unchallenged. Thus, we find that P.W.-l and P.W.-8 also corroborated the statement of eye-witness to the

extent that the accused after the occurence fled to his house along with farsa. The statements of aforesaid two eye-witnesses, also find full support

from the medical evidence. The Doctor found altogether nine incised wound on the body of deceased out of that injury No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

are on face, neck and on the shoulder of the deceased. This also goes to show that the appellant had given repeated farsa blow on the face and

neck of the deceased.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are close relatives of deceased and highly interested in the

prosecution and therefore, their evidences cannot become the basis for conviction is also not worth acceptable. Recently, their lordships of

Supreme Court in a decision reported in 2009 (1) JLJ SC 1 at Paragraph No. 7, have held as follows:

Merely because the eye-witnesses are family members their evidence cannot per se be discarded. When there is allegation of interestedness, the

same has to be established. Mere statement that being relatives of the deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the accused cannot be a ground

to discard the evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible. We shall also deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for

furthering prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would nor

conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases,

the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find our whether it is cogent and credible.

As noticed above, P.W.4 had categorically stated that he or his family members have no enmity with the appellant. Under the said

circumstance, we find no reason, why these witnesses will falsely implicate the appellant and conceal the actual culprit.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the seizure has not been proved because P.W.-1 had stated that he went to the place

of occurrence at about 12:00 in noon and at that very time, the said seizure was made, whereas the I.O. has stated that the said seizure was made

at 1:30 P.M. It is submitted that since there is contradiction regarding the time of seizure, the alleged seizure is doubtful. In our view, the said

contradiction is minor in nature having no bearing on the case of prosecution. So far as the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the

motive has not been proved, by now, it is well settled that when there is a direct, clinching and acceptable evidence on the point of occurrence then

absense of motive becomes irrelevant. Since the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses are wholly reliable and acceptable, only on the ground

of absence of motive, direct evidence cannot be thrown over board.

Now coming to the submission of learned Counsel for the appellant that the said farsa has not been produced in the court and no explanation

for the same was given, it may be mentioned that P.W.-8, the I.O. has stated in his deposition at Paragraph No. 10 that he had sent the farsa to

forensic science laboratory for chemical examination and till the submission of charge sheet, the report of forensic science laboratory was not

received by him. Thus, the reason for not producing the ''farsa'' in court has been sufficiently explained, in that view, the aforesaid submission of

learned Counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.

In view of the ocular testimony of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 coupled with the seizure of blood stained farsa on the disclosure of appellant and also

taking into consideration that the aforesaid ocular version of P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 find full corroboration from medical evidence and physical finding

of I.O., we are of the view that the prosecution have been able to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant beyond the shadow of all

reasonable doubt. We are of the considered opinion that learned court below has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. We find no

infirmity/illegality in impugned judgment warranting any interference by this Court.

In the result, this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.