Jai Narayan Sundi vs State Of Jharkhand

Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J

Heard  Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.02.2010 (sentence passed on

02.2010) passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Singhbhum (W) at Chaibasa in S.T. No.318 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34, I.P.C and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.

The prosecution case arises out of the Fardbayan of Ganga Ram Sundi recorded on 10.07.2008 in which it has been stated that the informant has three brothers; the informant, Jai Narayan Sundi (appellant) and Shibu Singh Sundi. On 09.07.2008 at 4.00 p.m., the son of the informant namely Bablu Sundi @ Saluka Sundi had gone to the house of Jai Narayan Sundi to discuss about the partition of ancestral property with the mother of the informant. After some time Jai Narayan Sundi came to the house of the informant and disclosed that Gyan Prakash Sundi, the son of Jai Narayan Sundi and Bablu Sundi are fighting with each other. The brother of the informant thereafter hurriedly went away which aroused a suspicion in the mind of the informant and when he went near the house of Jai Narayan Sundi, he had seen Gyan Prakash Sundi fleeing away. The door was locked and the lock was broken open with the help of a spade and on entering the informant had found his son lying dead on the floor. There were marks of injury on his person. The murder of the son of the informant took place on account of the dispute regarding the partition of land.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sonua P.S. Case No.29 of 2008 was instituted under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the court of sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 318 of 2008. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.

P.W.1 Mecho Sundi is the mother of the deceased Bablu @ Saluka who has stated that Jai Narayan Sundi is her brother-in-law with whom there is a land dispute. The incident occurred in the evening and she was in her house. There was a quarrel going on at which Jai Narayan Sundi and his son Gyan Sundi had assaulted her son with a Kulhadi. The incident occurred in the house of Jai Narayan Sundi. Her son had died at the place of occurrence itself. The house of Jai Narayan is at a distance of 500 meters from her house. Jai Narayan had come to her place and disclosed that he and his son Gyan have committed the murder of her son. On hearing such news, she and her husband had gone to the house of Jai Narayan and had seen the dead body of her son inside the house of Jai Narayan. She has stated that Jai Narayan and her son had fled away after the incident. The Police came on the next day and recorded the Fardbayan of her husband.

In cross-examination she has deposed that before the incident she and her husband were at home. She had not witnessed the incident. The people of the locality had come later on and had seen the dead body. The dispute was with respect to the land which belonged to her mother-in-law.

P.W.2 Shibu Singh Sundi has stated that he was in his house when Bablu Sundi was murdered. Jai Narayan Sundi had come to the house of Gangaram Sundi and disclosed that Gyan Prakash and Bablu Sundi are fighting with each other. When he went to the house of Jai Narayan Sundi, he found Bablu Sundi dead. The Police was informed who came and an inquest report was prepared. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination he has deposed that he was not present at the place where Jai Narayan Sundi had disclosed about the incident to Gangaram. The house of Jai Narayan is at a distance of 500 meters from his house. Bablu Sundi had marks of injury on his neck.

P.W.3 Ram Singh Gagrai has stated that on information he had gone to the house of Jai Narayan and had seen the dead body of Bablu.

In cross-examination he has deposed that Jai Narayan Sundi and his son Gyan Prakash Sundi used to stay in the house where the dead body was found.

P.W.4 Sachin Gagrai has stated that he had come to know from his maternal uncle that Jai Narayan Sundi and Gyan Prakash had taken Bablu to their house where after making him drink Hadia committed his murder with an axe. He has proved his signature in the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He has also proved his signature in the seizure list of blood-stained earth which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

In cross-examination he has deposed that his signature was taken in the police station.

P.W.5 Chand Muni Sundi is the wife of the deceased Bablu Sundi who has stated that Jai Narayan had informed that he and his son Gyan Prakash have committed the murder of her husband.

In cross-examination she has deposed that the land dispute between her father-in-law and his brother was going on for the last six months.

P.W.6 Gangaram Sundi is the informant and the father of the deceased who has stated that when he returned from his field to his house, his wife Mecho Kui had disclosed that Jai Narayan Sundi and Gyan Prakash Sundi have committed the murder of Bablu. The house of Jai Narayan was locked which was broken open and on entering inside he found the dead body of his son Bablu. There was a dispute in regard to a land between him and his brother Jai Narayan Sundi and Shibu Sundi.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the initial information was given by Jai Narayan Sundi.

P.W.7 Ganauri Paswan was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Sonua P.S. On 10.07.2008 he had received an information that in village Lonjo a person has been murdered. On reaching village Lonjo he had recorded the Fardbayan of Gangaram Sundi. The Fardbayan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-3. After taking over investigation he had recorded the restatement of the informant. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at Nichetoli, Sundisai at village Lonjo in the house of Jai Narayan Sundi. The body of Bablu Sundi was found in a room. He had on the same day recorded the statement of Shibu Singh Sundi. He has proved the inquest report and the seizure list of blood-stained earth which have been marked as Exhibit-4 and 5 respectively. He had arrested Jai Narayan Sundi on 10.07.2008 and had recorded his confessional statement. The said confessional statement has been proved and marked as Exhibit-6. He had recorded the statements of other witnesses. He had submitted charge sheet under Section 302 / 34 I.P.C showing Gyan Prakash Sundi as an absconder.

In cross-examination he has deposed that the informant had given his Fardbayan in Hindi. The witness Gangaram Sundi had not stated that Jai Narayan Sundi had fled away on seeing him.

P.W.8 Dr. Dilip Kumar Sinha was posted as a Medical Officer in Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 10.07.2008 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Saluka Sundi @ Bablu Sundi and had found the following:-

(1) Sharp cutting wound with bleeding present over right side of face below and lateral to the right pinna

(i) 2” x ½” x ½”

(ii) 3” x ½” x ½” deep

(2) Sharp cutting wound in the neck region

2” x ½” x 2” deep to the thorax.

The  cause  of  death  was  opined  to  be  due  to haemorrhage and shock on account of the multiple injuries caused by sharp cutting substance. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-7.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C in which he has denied his complicity in the murder of Bablu Sundi.

It has been submitted by Mr. Sudhansu Kumar Deo, learned counsel for the appellant that there are no eyewitnesses to the incident. There is a wide variation in the contents of the Fardbayan and the evidence of the informant recorded as P.W.6. He has further submitted that the weapon of assault was not recovered and merely because the dead body was recovered from the house of the appellant, he has been convicted for committing the murder of Bablu Sundi.

Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, learned A.P.P has submitted that there are strong circumstantial evidence in the face of recovery of the dead body of Bablu Sundi from the house of the appellant and the disclosure made by the appellant about the incident of assault conjointly committed by the appellant and his son. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important role and in the present case motive is prevalent as there was a land dispute between the informant and the appellant.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective sides and have also perused the trial court records.

The evidence of the witnesses clearly reveal that none had seen the incident of assault upon Bablu Sundi purportedly committed by the appellant and his son Gyan Prakash Sundi. In his Fardbayan, the informant (P.W.6) has stated that it was the appellant who had come to his house and disclosed that Gyan Prakash Sundi and Bablu Sundi are fighting with each other. However, in his evidence as P.W.6, he has given a different version to the effect that it was his wife who had disclosed about the murder committed by the accused persons when he returned home from his field. When we look to the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the informant, it transpires that it was the appellant who had come to her house and had disclosed about the murder committed by the appellant of her son Bablu Sundi. P.W.2 also appears to have supported the version of the informant as given in the Fardbayan regarding the fight between Gyan Prakash Sundi and Bablu Sundi as intimated by the appellant.

No doubt it is true that the body of Bablu Sundi was recovered from the house of the appellant but the same cannot by itself attribute the murder to the appellant. The appellant is the brother of the informant and as per the evidence of the witnesses, there was a land dispute between the parties and the motive for the murder fastened upon the appellant could have gained strength if the other circumstances would support the case of the prosecution.

As we have noticed above, vague allegations have been levelled against the appellant of having taken part in the assault which is all the more diluted when we peruse the post-mortem report which suggests that the injuries inflicted on the deceased could have been the handiwork of a solitary person.

Thus, on the basis of the discussions made herein above, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case against the appellant and consequently the judgement and order of conviction and sentence dated 11.02.2010 (sentence passed on 20.02.2010) passed by Shri Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-V, Singhbhum (W) at Chaibasa in S.T. No.318 of 2008 is hereby set aside.

This appeal is allowed.

Since the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released immediately and forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

Pending  interlocutory  application(s),  if  any,  stand(s) closed.