Lal Murli Tiu vs State of Jharkhand

D.N. Patel, J.—The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant accused against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated 26th June, 2000, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1996, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence, punishable u/s 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.

If the prosecution case is unfolded, the facts of the case are as under:

It is the case of the prosecution that on 7th September, 1993 at about 5.00 p.m. Sukumati Kui (deceased) had gone in search of duck and when the informant-Maraki Tiu (P.W.2) returned to his house along with sheep, he could not see his wife (Sukumati Kui-deceased) at his residence. P.W.2 started searching his wife, namely, Sukumati Kui, and while he was searching his wife, he saw in a bush of the nearby jungle that appellant-accused and three others were causing injuries to his wife. He shouted for help and for rescue of his wife, but, the accused persons ran after him (P.W. 2) also. He saw that the appellant-accused and other three accused persons were beating his wife. Thereafter, he immediately contacted Singrai Tiu- P.W. 4 (Munda of Dopai Village) and when they came at the place of occurrence, the accused had ran away with the dead body of the deceased and the dead body of the deceased could not be found out immediately. Thereafter, First Information report was lodged on 8th September, 1993 at about 16.30 hours. As the blood trail was going towards the nearby Jungle, during the couse of investigation, different parts of the body of the deceased could be collected by the investigating. Officer and, thereafter, post-mortem was carried out by Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W. 1) on 26th September, 1993. Four injuries were found, which were ante-mortem in nature. Thereafter, upon recording the statement of the witnesses, charge sheet was filed against the appellant-accused. Thereafter, the case was committed to the court of Sessions, where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1996 and after appreciating the evidence on record, the present appellant-accused has been convicted for the offence u/s 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life, as stated hereinabove, for committing murder of Sukumati Kui. Against this judgment and order of conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused.

The appellant-accused was absconding and was arrested on 28th July, 1995. Other three co-accused are still absconding.

We have heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-accused, who has submitted that the deposition of P.W. 2, who is husband of the deceased Sukumati Kui, is full of omissions, contradictions and exaggerations and is not getting any corroboration by the depositions of other prosecution witnesses. Thus, no reliance can be placed upon the deposition of P.W. 2. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that P.W. 2 has not tried to save the life of the deceased. There is no other independent eye witness to the whole incident. There are other co-accused and as per the deposition of P.W. 2 only one accused was carrying the weapon and, therefore, the prosecution has not proved, beyond reasonable doubts, that the murder of Sukumati Kui was committed by the appellant-accused. The whole incident has taken place behind the bush. P.W. 2 has narrated the whole incident on his own imagination. In fact, during evening hours, there cannot be even proper light behind the bush. The time of occurrence, place of occurrence, the role, played by the appellant-accused and the weapon in the hand of the appellant-accused has not been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The deposition of P.W. 2 is, thus, full of omissions, contradictions and improvements and, therefore, it is not save to rely upon the so called sole eye witness i.e. P.W. 2. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and, hence, the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the trial court, deserve to be quashed and set aside.

We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the State, who has submitted that the whole incident has been accurately narrated by P.W. 2, who is an eye witness of the whole incident. Immediate is the First Information Report and the appellant-accused is named in the First Information Report. The appellant-accused was absconding for approximately two years. P.W. 2, who is husband of the deceased, had gone in search of his wife, as he had not seen his wife at his house and during search in the nearby Jungle area, behind the bush, he saw the appellant-accused and other three co-accused persons causing injuries to his wife. He shouted for rescue of his wife, but, the appellant-accused and the other co-accused ran after P.W. 2 and this is how P.W. 2 came in the village and contacted P.W. 4 and when they all had gone in the nearby Jungle area, the dead body was taken away by the accused persons, including the appellant-accused. Thereafter, First Information Report was filed on 8th September, 1993, which was signed by P.W. 4, who is Munda of Dopai Village, and also by the Manki. First Information Report (Exty.4) has been proved by P.W. 3 Shankarlal Chourasia. It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that the deposition of eye witness (P.W. 2) is getting full corroboration by the deposition, given by Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W. 1). It is stated that there were four injuries and injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3 could have been caused by heavy sharp cutting instrument. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that looking to the nature of weapon, which is "Bhujali", it appears that it is a heavy sharp cutting instrument, which, as per P.W. 2, was in the hand of the present appellant-accused. Thus, the deposition of the eye witness (P.W. 2) is getting full corroboration from the deposition, given by Dr. Yogendra Nath. It is further submitted by the A.P.P. that looking to the depositions of other prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. 4 and. P.W. 3 also, it appears that there is corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 2 (eye witness). Thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating his evidence and holding that the prosecution has proved the offence, beyond all reasonable doubts, to be committed by the appellant-accused and, therefore, this Criminal Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

Having heard learned Counsel for both the sides and looking to the evidences on record, it appears that the whole incident had taken place on 7th September, 1993 at about 5.00 p.m. Looking to the deposition, given by Maraki Tiu (P.W. 2), who is husband of the deceased, it appears that when he came at his home, at the evening hours, he could not see his wife at his residence and, therefore, he had gone in search of his wife and during search of his wife, when he was roaming at a Jungle area, behind the bush, he saw the appellant-accused and three other accused persons beating and causing injuries to the wife of P.W. 2. Sukumati Kui was assaulted by this appellant-accused and three other co-accused, behind the bush. She was also shouting and Maraki Tiu also shouted for her rescue. Looking to his deposition, it appears that the accused persons ran after this witness (P.W. 2) and, therefore, he immediately contacted P.W. 4 (Singhrai Tiu), who is Munda of Dopai Village. When they came at the place of occurrence, appellant-accused and other co-accused had disappeared along with the dead body of Sukumati Kui and, therefore, on 8th September, 1993, at about 16.30 hours, First Information Report was filed, which was signed by P.W. 4 (Munda of Dopai Village) as well as by the Manki.

Looking to the cross-examination of this P.W. 2, who is an eye witness, it appears that nothing is coming out in favour of the appellant-accused. It is also stated by P.W. 2 that out of total our accused persons, only one was having a weapon "Bhujali" in his hand. "Bhujali" is a heavy sharp cutting instrument. As there was a blood trail; going towards the Jungle, during course of investigation, different parts of the body of deceased- Sukumati Kui were found out. Looking to the deposition of P.W. 2, which is corroborated By the depositions of other prosecution witnesses also, we are of the opinion that he (P.W. 2) is a trustworthy and reliable witness Though he is a rustic witness and has given the deposition after five and half years of the incident, there are no much omissions or contradictions in his deposition.

Looking to the deposition of P.W. 3 (Shankarlal Chaurasia), who is a formal witness, it appears that he hads proved the inquest report (Ext.3), First Information Report (Ext.4) as well as Fard-Beyan (Ext.5).

Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4 (Singhrai Tiu), who is Munda of Dopai Village, it appears that he has stated in his depositior that: P.W. 2 came to him and narrated that the appellant-accused as well as other co-accused are assaulting his wife Sukumati Kui. Immediately, they went at the place of occurrence but, accused had ran away with the dead body and, therefore, First Information Report was filed on 8th September, 1993, which was signed by this P.W. 4 also along with the signature of Manki. Thus, looking to the deposition and cross-examination of this witness (P.W. 4), who was immediately informed by P.W. 2 about the time of occurrence, place of occurrence, the role played by this appellant-accused and the weapon, used by this appellant-accused, and looking to the fact that following the blood trail, going towards the Jungle area, they started searching for the dead body of Sukumati Kui, which was found out later on, and ultimately different parts of the dead body of Sukumati Kui were collected and were sent for post-mortem examination, it appears that there is enough corroboration to the deposition of P.W. 2, who is eye witness of the incident.

Looking to the deposition of Dr. Yogerdra Nath (P.W. 1), who has carried out the post-mortem examination of the deceased, it appears that he has narrated, in detail, the injuries, sustained by the deceased. Following were the injuries sustained by the deceased:

(i) A cut fracture over 9th thoracic vertebrae partially cutting the vertebrae on dorsum of body.

(ii) A bony gap over left occipital bone starting from foramen magnum upto occipital bone over an area of 7 x 21/2 Cm.

(iii) Cut fracture over right fibula bone.

(iv) An old contusion of soft tissue over right zygometic area of face and occipital scalp measuring 6 x 4 Cm. and 5 x 5 Cm. respectively. Another contusion of scalp on frontal scalp 4 x 4 Cm.

Thus, injury Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in the opinion of the doctor, can be caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon and looking to the deposition of P.W. 2, it is the present appellant-accused, who has used the instrument "Bhujali" for causing murder of the deceased. "Bhujali" is a heavy sharp cutting instrument. It is also the opinion of the doctor that the death of the deceased has been caused within fifteen to thirty days from the date of 1st bone examination i.e. 26th September, 1993. This time is also tallying with the time, deposed by P.W. 2 and P.W. 4. It is also stated by this Dr. Yogendra Nath (P.W. 1) that the bones were of a human female, aged about 25 years, but, below 40 years of age and all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Thus, looking to the medical evidence, it appears that there is enough corroboration to the deposition, given by P.W. 2, who is an eye witness of the incident. Motive has also been alleged by P.W. 2 that since the wife of one of the co-accused persons, who also happened to be the mother of the present appellant-accused, had expired and she had fallen down in presence of Sukumati Kui, the accused persons, including the present appellant-accused, were under impression that because of the witch-craft played by Sukumati Kui, the appellant has lost his mother, who also happened to be the wife of another co-accused and, therefore, they have murdered Sukumati Kui and also because of the deceased, the accused side were not in a position to get the property as they all are the agnates.

Thus, looking to over all depositions of the prosecution witnesses, it appears that the whole case is based upon the deposition of the eye witness i.e. P.W. 2, supported by the medical evidence. The whole incident has taken place during day hours and there was sufficient light. Therefore, there was no question of misidentification by P.W. 2 to the appellant-accused. The weapon has also been identified by P.W. 2. Thus, there is no contradiction of omission so far as time of occurrence is concerned, so far as place of occurrence is concerned, so far as the role played by this appellant-accused is concerned and so far as use of the weapon by the accused is concerned. The deposition of P.W. 2 has got enough corroboration by the medical evidence of P.W. 1 and by the deposition of P.W. 4, who is Munda (Head of Dopai Village), who has also signed the First Information Report (Ext. 4). The present appellant-accused was also absconding and was arrested and presented before the court on 28th July, 1995 whereas the date of incident is 7th September, 1993. Looking to the evidence on record and the impugned judgment and order of the trial court, it appears that no error has been committed by the trial court in appreciating the aforesaid evidences. Looking to the evidence on record, it is evedent that it is the present appellant-accused, who has committed the murder of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved the offence, beyond all reasonable doubts, to have been committed by the appellant-accused.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we hereby affirm the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, both dated 16th June, 2000 in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1996. There is no substance in this Criminal Appeal and, hence, the same is hereby dismissed.