Lakshuman Sharma vs The State of Bihar

P.K. Sarkar, J.—This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated the 31st of May, 1986 passed by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Chapra, in Sessions Trial No. 42 of 1979, by which the sole appellant Lakshuman Sharma was found guilty u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code") and was sentenced to undergo R.I.for life. The prosecution case in short, as appears from the F.I.R. recorded on the statement of the informant Ghughli Ram (R W. 13), brother of the deceased Kampani Ram on 3.11.1977 is as follows :

On 2.11.1977 at 4 P.M. Kampani Ram, brother of the informant Ghughali Ram had gone to cut grass for his master Ram Kumar Sharma from the Parti land situated in village Sultangan). it is further alleged that the accused- appellant Lakshuman Sharma was cutting grass there from before. The appellant asked Kampani Ram to bring a ''Gatan'' for tying his grass bundles to which Kampani Ram refused. The appellant thereafter started abusing, to which Kampani Ram (deceased) also retorted. This enraged the appellant and so he told the deceased Kampani Ram that being a cobbler, he is abusing a Bhumihar and saying this he assaulted the deceased Kampani Ram with a sickle on his chest, which went inside, due to which he fell down saying ''Bap-re-Bap''. It is further stated that the informant Ghughali Ram (P.W.13) was catching fish in the nearby pond and on hearing the alam raised by Kampani Ram, he went to the place of occurrence. By then Havildar Ram who was also collecting woods at a distance nearby, came there. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant took out the sickle and snatched away the Ganji of the deceased Kampani Ram and fled away. Thereafter the informant and others raised alarm on which other witnesses arrived there. It is further stated that the informant''s brother Kampani Ram succumbed to his injuries. It is stated that due to follow up night the informant and his other family members could not proceed to the Police Station out of fear and on the next day morning they went to the Amnaur Police Station with the dead body of the deceased Kampani Ram.

On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant Ghughali Ram (P.W.13) a F.I.R. was instituted and a case u/s 302 of the Code was registered against the accused-appellant Lakshuman Sharma. Thereafter the Police took up investigation into the case, conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased and also sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The Police also visited the place of occurrence and took the statements of the witnesses and on completion of the investigation, submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

On trial the trial court found the appellant Lakshuman Sharma guilty u/s 302 of the Code and convicted and sentenced him in the manner as indicated above.

The defence has also examined one witness and proved certain papers. The defence appears to be of complete denial of the occurrence. The appellant has submitted that he has committed no offence and he has been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. The appellant has also claimed alibi saying that on the date of occurrence he was present in his office which is at a distance from the place of occurrence.

The prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined 15 witnesses in this case, out of whom P.W.13 Ghughali Ram, who is informant in this case, is an eye witness to the occurrence. P.W.5 Havildar Ram is another eye witness in this case. Rest of the witnesses, namely, PW.2 Hiralal Manhji, P.W. 3 Kailash Manjhi, P.W.4, Ram Balak Rai, P.W.6 Som Nath Ram, P.W.7 Shiv Raj Ram, P.W.9 Yusuf Mian, P.W.10 Raghunath Manjhi, P.W.11 Sita Devi and P.W.12-Baijnath Manjhi are hear-say witnesses, who reached the place of occurrence after the occurrence on the alarm and heard about the occurrence from the informant (P.W.13) and other persons. P.W.1 Gajadhar Ram has turned hostile, as he did not support his earlier version made before the police. P.W.8 Rangal Manjhi was tendered by the prosecution P.W.14 Dr. Akhauri Kailash Bihari Sinha is the Medical officer who conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Kam-pani Ram, and P.W.15 Badri Nath Pandey is the Investigating Officer of this case.

The informant (P.W.13) has stated in his evidence that about seven years before from the date of his examination on a Wednesday at about 4 P.M. he was catching fish from a pond. He has further stated that Kampani Ram, his own brother, was cutting grass, where the accused Lakshuman Sharma was also cutting grass from before. Lakshuman Sharma asked his brother Kampani Ram to bring a ''Gatan'' which he refused. At this Lakshuman Sharma started abusing Kampani Ram, who also retorted. The informant (P.W.13) has further stated that Lakshuman Sharma thereafter pushed a sickle on the chest of Kampani Ram, saying that being a cobbler he is abusing him. Thereafter Kampani Ram received injury and fell down. P.W. 13 has further stated that Havilder Ram came there and Lakshuman Sharma fled away. P.W.13 has further stated that on the next day he brought the dead body to the Police Station. He has also stated that they could not go to the Police Station in that evening due to fear.

P.W.5, Havildar Ram has also corroborated the statement of the informant (P.W.13) saying that about 7 years before (from the date of his examination) on a Wednesday at about 4 P.M. he was going to take woods near the Brahm Asthan. He has further stated that at that time the accused- appellant Lakshuman Sharma and the deceased Kampani Ram were cutting the grass there from the land of Sakal Sharma. He has further stated that the accused-appellant was cutting the grass from before and subsequently Kampani Ram came there for cutting the grass. P.W.5 has further stated that the accused appellant asked Kampani Ram to bring a Gatan for tying his grass bundles, which was refused by Kampani Ram, saying that he was cutting the grass and so he should himself collect his own Gatan. At this the accused-appellant started abusing Kampani Ram, which was also retorted by him. At this the accused-appellant told Kampani Ram that being a cobbler (Chamar) he is abusing a Bhumihar. Thereafter the accused-appellant pushed a sickle in the chest of Kampani Ram, as a result, saying ''Bap-re-Bap'', he fell down. The appellant thereafter took away the Ganji of Kampani Ram by tearing it off. P.W.5 has further stated that due to fear on that day he did not go to the Police Station with the dead body. The aforesaid statements of P.Ws.13 and 5 are fully consistent with each other and also corroborate the statement of the informant made in the F.I.R.

P.W.2, Hira Lal Manjhi has also stated that he found the dead body of Kampani Ram stained with blood and Havildar Ram told him that Lakshuman Sharma (appellant) has committed his murder. On the next day they took the dead body of Kam-pani Ram to the Police Station.

P.W.3, P.W.4, P.W.6, P.W7, P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.12 have all stated that on that day they reached the place of occurrence on hearing Halla and found the dead body of Kampani Ram in a pool of blood and Ghughali Ram and Havildar Ram (P.Ws.13 and 5) told them that the accused-appellant Lakshuman Sharma had committed his murder.

P.W.11, Sita Devi is the mother of the deceased Kampani Ram and also of the informant. She has stated that on the day of occurrence she went to the house of Ram Thakur and when she was returning from the house of Ram Thakur and reached near her own house, she heard Halla and went to the place of occurrence and found that her son Kampani Ram was lying dead in the field of Sakal Sharma. P.W.11 has further stated that she learnt from her son, the informant (P.W.13) that Lakshuman Sharma (appellant) has committed murder of her son Kampani Ram.

Thus all the aforesaid witnesses have consistently stated that they saw the dead body of the deceased Kampani Ram at the place of occurrence in a pool of blood and they ultimately learnt from Havildar Ram and Ghughali Ram (P.Ws.5 and 13) that the accused-appellant has committed the murder of the deceased Kampani Ram. P.Ws.5 and 13 are the eye witnesses, who have stated that they saw the actual occurrence of murder committed by the appellant.

P.W.1, Gajadhar Ram has turned hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution and his earlier statement made before the police. P.W.8 was tendered for cross-examination. Thus the evidences of these two prosecution witnesses are not of much importance for the prosecution.

P.W.15, Badri Nath Pandey is the investigating officer in this case, who has stated that on 3.11.1977 he was posted in Amnaur Police Station as Officer Incharge. On that date he recorded the statement of the informant Ghughali Ram (P.W.13) which he read over and explained to him and finding the same to be correct, he put his signature on the same. He has proved Ext. 2, i.e. the aforesaid statement of P.W.13. He has also proved Ext. 3, i.e. formal F.I.R. P.W.15 has also stated that the informant brought the dead body of his brother Kampani Ram. He seized the aforesaid Ganji in presence of the witnesses and prepared a seizure list marked Ext.4. He has further stated that he also took up investigation into the case and prepared inquest report of the dead body. He also proved Ext. 5, i.e. inquest report. P.W.15 has further stated that he visited the place of occurrence at about 11 A.M. on that day and seized the blood stained earth from the place of occurrence and prepared a seizure list in presence of the witnesses, marked Ext.6. He also proved Ext. 6, i.e. the aforesaid seizure list. P.W.15 has further stated that the place of occurrence is about half Kilometer from village Sultan-ganj and is a lonely place. The house of the deceased is 600 yards east from that place and the house of the accused-appellant is about 200 yards on the west. The place of occurrence is a field of Ram Sakal Sharma, bearing Plot No. 250 Khata No. 233, measuring 14 katha 5 dhurs. After completing investigation he submitted charge-sheet in this case. The attention of P.W.15 was also drawn towards the statement of Gajadhar Ram (P.W.1), recorded by him, in which he has stated that he heard about the occurrence from Havildar Ram (P.W.5) which he corroborated. Thus the statement of the I.O. fully corroborates the occurrence. He also found blood at the place of occurrence and seized blood stained earth and prepared a seizure list. He also seized blood stained Ganji of the deceased Kampani Ram.

P.W.14, Akhauri Kailash Bihari Sinha has stated that on 4.11.1977 at about 8 A.M. while he was posted as C.A.S. in Sadar Hospital, Chapra, he performed postmortem examination on the dead body of Kampani Ram and found the following antemortem injuries :

"Rigor monies was present in the upper limb only and decomposition had started.

(1) Perforating incised wound 1/4" x 1/4" x chest cavity deep over the chest left side in the fourth left intercostal strip near nipple on opening the chest pleura was found injured and perecardinal perforated with blood and blood clots present in the perecardinal cavity. Left attrim was also perforated of the size 1/2" x 1/4" in the upper part chest cavity left side filled with blood and blood clots nearly 60 Os. Injury No. 1 may be caused by sharp cutting pointed weapon such as hasua."

The doctor (P.W.14) has further stated that the death was caused due to shock and haemorrhage due to rupture of heart. In the opinion of the doctor injury No. 1 was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of business and the time of death elapsed was within 24 to 36 hours. From the aforesaid evidence of the doctor (P.W.14) it appears that the medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular evidence regarding the injury received by the deceased Kampani Ram and the place where such injury was caused.

I have given my anxious consideration on the entire evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and I find that there is no such fact which can raise any doubt regarding merit of their statements.

The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that P.W.2 in his cross-examination has stated that the brother of Ghughali Ram, namely, Ram Balak Rai (P.W.4) went to the Police Station in the evening itself. He could not say whether he returned from the Police Station; whereas P.W.4 has stated nothing on this point. Thus it is not clear whether P.W.4 went to the police station and gave any statement. I do not find that this omission in the statement of P.W.4 is very important in view of the fact that the statement of P.W.2 appears to be made out of confusion because none of the I.D. or any of the witnesses have stated that any information was lodged in the Police Station in the evening. On the other hand, it is a consistent case that the dead body of the deceased Kampani Ram was taken to the Police Station in the next morning and thereafter the case was filed.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that there was delay in filing the F.I.R. The date of occurrence is 2.11.1977 and the time is at 4.P.M. whereas on the next day, i.e. on 3.11.1977 at 7 A.M. the F.I.R. was lodged, i.e. about 15 hours later. It is further submitted that the explanation given by the witnesses about this delay does not appear to be very much appreciable. Thus the delay in lodging the F.I.R. adversely affects the prosecution case.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, submitted that the Police Station is about 10 Kilometer away from the village and all the witnesses have consistently stated that due to fear of the appellant they could not take the dead body to the Police Station on that evening. On the other hand it appears from the evidence of P.W.5, P.W.11 and P.W.13 that the dead body was kept in front of the house of the Mukhiya. Thus this delay cannot be treated as fatal in view of the aforesaid evidence of the prosecution witnesses. In view of the consistent case of the prosecution and also the evidence of the witnesses it appears to be quite cogent that this delay does not appear to be such as to affect the prosecution case.

Now the learned counsel for the appellant has also stated that though it is stated by the witnesses that the dead body was kept in the house of the Mukhiya, the Mukhiya has not been examined. The I.O. has also not stated anything whether he found any sign of fishing or collecting of woods near the place of occurrence. The learned counsel contends that all these facts clearly show that the witnesses are not trustworthy. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the State submits that non-examination of the Mukhiya Ram Kumar Sharma and non-mentioning of any sign of fishing or collecting of woods near the place of occurrence are not such that the entire prosecution case can be thrown out. It is not expected that any sign of fishing can be found or collection of woods will be such as to attract the attention of the I.O. Similarly keeping of the dead body in front of the house of the Mukhiya is consistent with the fact and the circumstances of the case and thus only because the Mukhiya was not examined, the entire prosecution case cannot be disbelieved.

The defence has also examined one D.W. in this case, namely, Chandra Madho Sharma, who has stated that in the year 1977 the appellant Lakshuman Sharma was posted in his office. This defence witness has proved the signature of the appellant Lakshuman Sharma and also the signature of the Subdivisional Officer, Gandak Project, which have been marked as Exts. A and A/1 respectively. He has further stated that as per the attendance register the appellant Lakshuman Sharma was present in his office on 2 11.1977 and he was paid his wages for such attendance. He has also proved Ext. B. i.e. the certificate granted by him, which also bears the signature of A.P.Sinha, Subdivisional officer, Tirhut Canal Subdivision. In his cross-examination D.W.1 has stated that Lakshuman Sharma was present in his office at 9.30 A.M. on the date of the occurrence. The distance of Rewaghat from his office is 12 miles and the Gunduk River is adjacent to Rewaghat and the breadth of the River Gunduk at that place is very small. He could not say whether boats were available there. D.W.1 has also stated that there are roads upto Rewaghat.

The learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the evidence of D.W.1, therefore, shows that the appellant was present in his office, which is at a far distance from the place of occurrence intervening by Gunduk River and so it is not expected that he can come back in his village in the evening on the date of the occurrence.

The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the court below has also observed in the impugned order that the Subdivisional Officer has not been examined in this case and he would have been the better person to say whether the appellant who was posted as peon, was present in his office on the date of the occurrence. Moreover since the attendance of the appellant was taken at 9.30 A.M. in his office and the occurrence happened in the evening at about 4 P.M. the return of the appellant to his village is also not very abnormal. Moreover, sanctity of the attendance register itself appears to be doubtful and only on the basis of the aforesaid evidence of D.W.1 the entire case of the prosecution and the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses cannot be disbelieved.

On a careful consideration of the entire facts, the evidence and the circumstances of the case, the submission made on behalf of the appellant does not appear to raise much confidence. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses are quite consistent and cogent. The evidence of the doctor also corroborates the ocular evidence. It is true that due to lapse of time there was decomposition of the dead body and the doctor''s finding does not corroborate in entirety, but the fact remains that the injury was found on the chest of the deceased Kampani Ram by an instrument like sickle and the eye witnesses have also corroborated the same facts. The witnesses who reached the place of occurrence have also found the injuries on the dead body. In view of the facts stated above, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the court below appear to be quite reasonable and consistent with the prosecution case. I, therefore, do not find any thing which requires any interference in the said impugned judgment and order. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the court below are confirmed. The appellant is on bail, hence his bail bond is cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below forthwith to serve out the remaining period of his sentence, failing which the court below will take necessary steps for his arrest/apprehension.

R.N. Prasad, J.

I agree.