Ram Prasad Rai vs State of Jharkhand

H.C. Mishra, J

Heard learned counsel and learned amicus curie appointed by the Court for the appellant, as also and learned counsel for the State.

The sole appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment of  conviction dated 26th of February, 2008 and the Order of sentence dated 29th of

February, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2006, whereby, the appellant has been

found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been

sentenced to undergo R.I. for life for the said offence.

The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the written report given by the informant Chhakni Devi, the wife of the deceased Bhikhan

Yadav, at Dhanwar Police Station, stating therein that on 27.5.2005, the informant along with her husband had gone to her parents’ place, in

village Bandhi, P.S.-Dhanwar, District-Giridih, on the occasion of Thakurahi festival. At about 1.00 P.M., her husband was going towards the place,

where the feast was going on, when the accused Ram Prasad Rai of the same village assaulted her husband by knife in his abdomen, due to which,

her husband fell down. The informant and the villagers present there rushed towards her husband, whereupon, the accused fled away. She brought

her husband with the help of the villagers to Referral Hospital, Dhanwar, where looking into the serious condition of her husband, he was referred to

Ranchi. She has stated that the occurrence had taken placed due to the fact that while the accused was bringing the food articles, the bodies of the

accused and her husband touched with each other, whereupon, the accused assaulted her husband by knife. On the basis of the written report,

Dhanwar P.S. Case No. 87 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No. 965 of 2005, was instituted for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 323 and 307 of

the Indian Penal Code, against the accused Ram Prasad Rai, and investigation was taken up. The husband of the informant died in the way, while

being taken to Ranchi, and as such, Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the FIR. After investigation, the police submitted the charge-

sheet in the case.Â

After commitment of the case to the Court of Session, charge was framed against the accused for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, and upon the accused's pleading not guilty and claiming to be tried, he was put to trial. In course of trial, the prosecution has examined 12

witnesses, including the I.O. and the Doctor, who had treated the deceased while he was alive, as also the Doctor, who had conducted the post-

mortem examination on his dead body. No evidence was adduced by the defence.Â

P.W.-10 Most. Chhakni Devi, is the informant of the case and also the wife of the deceased. She has stated that the occurrence had taken place

more than two years ago at about 1.00 P.M., when she was at her father’s house. She saw that the accused Ram Prasad Rai was coming from

the place where Thakurahi Puja was performed. He was bringing the food articles and her husband Bhikhan Yadav was coming from the opposite

side. Her husband collided with Ram Prasad Rai, due to which, the rice and meat which the accused was carrying, fell down from his hand,

whereupon, Ram Prasad Rai assaulted her husband by knife in his stomach. Her husband was brought to Dhanwar Hospital, from where, he was

referred to Ranchi, and while being taken to Ranchi, her husband died at Ramgarh. She had given the written information at the Police Station about

the occurrence. She has identified the accused in the Court. In her cross-examination, this witness has stated that the females do not take meal at the

place, where Thakurahi Puja is performed, due to which, she along with her husband were at the house. When her husband was assaulted by the

accused, she was at the verandah of the house. When her husband was injured, her mother, sister and other persons rushed there. Her father also

rushed there and, thereafter, her husband was brought to Dhanwar, from where, he was referred to Ranchi, and while she was going to Ranchi along

with her husband, he died in the way. The other family members were also there. On the advice of her elder brother-in-law, who was also

accompanying them, they returned back in the night itself and went to the Police Station with the dead body, where an application was given.

Thereafter she came to her parents’ place, where also, her statement was taken by the police. After the occurrence, she is living at her

parents’ place. She has denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence.Â

P.W.-9 Rameshwar Mahto, is the father of the informant. He has stated that the occurrence had taken place about two years ago. There was

Thakurahi Puja in his house, on the occasion of which, there was a feast amongst the villagers. He had also called his other relatives in the feast.

His  son-in-law, Bhikhan Yadav had also come there. This witness has stated that Ram Prasad Rai was carrying meat and rice from the place of

worship, and his son-in-law was coming from his house towards the place of worship, and both of them collided, due to which, the meat and rice

which Ram Prasad Rai was carrying, fell down, whereupon, Ram Prasad Rai assaulted his son-in-law by knife in his stomach. This witness along with

others brought his son-in-law to Dhanwar Hospital, from where, after treatment, he was referred to Ranchi. By the time, they reached Ramgarh, his

son-in-law died. This witness has identified the accused in the Court. In his cross-examination he has stated that he used to perform Thakurahi Puja

every year, which is performed by the side of a river. The river is situated at a distance of 400 yards from his house. He has also stated that

Thakurahi Puja was performed by the accused Ram Prasad Rai, and about 200-300 persons had assembled there for feast. Some of them were taking

meal and some of them were serving the meal. This witness has also stated that the people take the meal at the place of worship itself, and even if

they carry the food to their house, the food is consumed outside the house. He has stated that when his son-in-law was assaulted, he was nearby the

place, serving meal to the people. Soon after the assault, his son-in-law was taken to hospital and they reached hospital within 15 minutes, and after

the treatment they proceeded towards Ranchi, and by the time they reached Ramgarh, his son-in-law died. They returned back to the Police Station

with the dead body and the case was instituted by his daughter. He has also denied the suggestion to have falsely implicated the accused due to any

previous enmity.

P.W.-2 Mahendra Ravidas and P.W.-7 Baldev Yadav have supported the prosecution case as eyewitnesses. Both these witnesses have stated that

they were attending the Thakurahi Puja at Rameshwar Mahto’s place. Ram Prasad Rai was going after performing the Puja and Bhikhan Yadav

was coming from the opposite direction and both of them collided, due to which, meat and rice, which were being carried by Ram Prasad Rai fell

down, whereupon, Ram Prasad Rai assaulted Bhikhan Yadav by knife in his stomach. P.W.-2 Mahendra Ravidas has stated that Bhikhan Yadav

was taken to hospital and, subsequently, this witness learnt that Bhikhan had died. This witness has also stated that when Ram Prasad Rai was

apprehended by the police, he produced the knife, which was seized by the police and this witness had also put his signature on the seizure list, which

on his identification, was marked as Exhibit-1. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that he was present at the place of occurrence at a

distance of about 20 yards. He has stated that his statement was recorded on the same day, on which, his signature was taken on the seizure list. He

has also stated that there are about 500 houses in the village, in which, people belonging to different castes, namely, Ravidas, Ghatwar, Modi,

Bhumihar, Kahar, Teli, etc., reside. He has also denied the suggestion of giving false evidence. P.W.-7 Baldev Yadav has stated that the injury was

caused below the chest of the deceased, and he was taken to Dhanwar Hospital, from where he was referred to Ranchi, and he died while being

taken to Ranchi. In his  cross-examination, he has stated that Bhikhan Yadav was the son-in-law of his sadhu. He has also stated that at the time

of occurrence, he was serving the meal to the people, at a distance of 50 yards from the house of Rameshwar. There was likelihood of rain, due to

which, everyone was in hurry. He has stated that he was at a distance of 40-50 feet, where the deceased was assaulted and he had seen the accused

assaulting the deceased by knife. Thereafter, the accused pulled out the knife and fled away. He has stated that soon after the occurrence, it started

raining. He has also denied the suggestion of giving the false evidence.

P.W.-5 Ganesh Yadav and P.W.-6 Bijay Yadav are the cousins of the deceased and they had also gone to the in-laws’ place of the deceased

for attending the Thakurahi Puja. They have also supported the case as eyewitnesses to the occurrence, stating that at the time of occurrence, they

were serving the meal to the people, when they saw that Bhikhan Yadav was coming from the house towards the place of worship, and Ram Prasad

Rai was going from the place of worship with meat and rice. Both of them collided, due to which, the meat and rice fell down and Ram Prasad Rai

assaulted Bhikhan Yadav by knife, due to which, he fell down at the spot. They brought the injured Bhikhan Yadav to Dhanwar Hospital and looking

into his serious condition, he was referred to Ranchi, and while they were in the way to Ranchi, the deceased died. They have also identified the

accused in the Court. P.W.-5 Ganesh Yadav has stated that the injury was caused in the chest of the deceased. He has denied the suggestion in his

cross-examination that he is the cousin of the deceased, but he has clarified that the family of the Bhikhan was his neighbour, and after the death of

the father of Bhikhan, he was brought up in his family, due to which, there was brotherhood with Bhikhan. He has also stated that he had also gone to

the in-laws’ place of the deceased for attending the Puja. The feast was going on at a distance of 40 yards from the house of the father-in-law of

the deceased where the occurrence had also taken place. P.W.-6 Bijay Yadav has stated in his cross-examination that the deceased was his cousin

and he had also gone along with the deceased and other family members for attending the Puja. He has also stated that the he-goat had been

sacrificed before his reaching that village, but the deceased and this witness were helping in cooking the meat and rice. About 50 persons had

assembled for taking meal and they were being served the food. This witness has also stated that there was likelihood of storm and rain, due to which,

everyone was in hurry. He has also stated that he had seen the deceased colliding with accused Ram Prasad Rai. He had also seen the accused

assaulting the deceased by knife, which was also pulled out from the wound by the accused. The assault was made just above the stomach on the

chest. He was at a distance of about 10 yards only from the place, where the deceased was assaulted. This witness has stated that soon after the

occurrence, there was storm and rain.

P.W.-3 Munni Rai and P.W.-4 Nandlal Modi have supported the case as hearsay witnesses. P.W.-3 Munni Rai was taking meal at the place of

occurrence when there was a connotation that Ram Prasad Rai had assaulted Bhikhan Yadav. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that in

Thakurahi Puja, as a matter of practice, the meal is taken outside the house and not inside the house. P.W.-4 Nandlal Modi has stated that upon

hearing about the occurrence, he reached the place of occurrence and saw Bhikhan Yadav in injured condition. He has also stated that the people

present there were saying that Ram Prasad Rai had assaulted him by knife. This witness has also stated that Ram Prasad Rai was subsequently

apprehended by the police and the police also recovered a knife from his house. He is a witness to the seizure list and he has identified his signature

thereon, which was marked Exhibit-1/1.

P.W.-1 is Radho Das, who has stated that he was attending the Thakurahi Puja at the place of Rameshwar Mahto and he saw Bhikhan Yadav

coming from the house towards the place of worship and Ram Prasad Rai was going from there with rice and meat. Both of them collided and there

was an altercation between them. This witness has stated that thereafter he heard that the accused Ram Prakash Rai had assaulted the deceased by

knife, due to which, he fell down. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile, as he had given his statement before the police as an eyewitness to

the occurrence. In his                cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the accused assaulting the

deceased, rather he had only heard about it.

P.W.-12 Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma, had treated the deceased, while he was in injured condition, at Referral Hospital, Rajdhanwar, on 27.5.2005

and had found the following injuries on him:-

(i) An incised would 2.8 cm x .8 cm and deep to intra abdominal cavity and gut.

Above injury was confirmed by hematemesis (dark blood vomited by the patient on operation theater on O.T. table) with oozing of blood through

wound mentioned above situated in epigastrium .2 cm below xiphi sternum with severe pallor (sharir ka rang feeka hona khoon bahne ke karan),

patient in shock, breath smelled of alcohol, severe intra abdominal haemorrhage confirmed clinically.Â

   He has stated that the nature of injury was grievous and the weapon used was sharp cutting weapon, such as, knife. He has stated that the

patient was referred by him to RIMS Hospital at Ranchi. He has proved the injury report of the Bhikhan Yadav and the same wasÂ

marked Exhibit-5. In his  cross-examination, this witness has stated that the patient was unconscious due to haemorrhage and shock, but

he was not under intoxication of alcohol, though he had consumed alcohol. He had also stitched and bandaged the wound and he had referred him to

RIMS. He has also stated that the injury was not possible due to fall.

P.W.-8 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad had conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 28.5.2005 and had found the

following injuries:-

(i) Two stitched wounds at right side of epigastric area. On opening of stitched incised wound 3â€​ x ½â€​ x abdominal cavity deep.  Â

On dissection:-Â

(i) Skull-NAD. Brain-NAD. Both lungs congested, heart empty in all chambers, abdominal cavity full of clotted blood, intestinal coil perforated 1†x

¼†(torn), stomach empty, mucosa membrane NAD, bladder empty, liver, spleen and kidney were congested hyoid bone intact, larynx and

trachea NAD.Â

 He has stated that the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to ante-mortem injuries, caused by sharp cutting substance. He has proved

the post-mortem report to be in his pen and signature, which was marked Exhibit-2.

P.W-11 Ram Krit Singh, is the I.O. of the case. He has stated that on 27.5.2005, he was posted as A.S.I. at Dhanwar Police Station and an

O.P.D. slip was received from the Hospital, and he was sent to the hospital by the Officer-Incharge of the Police Station. He saw the injured in

serious condition with bandaged wound on his stomach, who had been referred to Ranchi. A written report was handed over to him by the

informant, which he brought to the Police Station, on the basis of which, the police case was instituted and he was handed over the charge of

investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and he also recorded the re-statement of the informant. He has given the details of the place of

occurrence, which is at a distance of 40 yards from the house of Rameshwar Mahto. There were two small bamboo bushes and one mahua tree,

where he was informed that the feast was going on. He has stated that after the occurrence, there was heavy storm and rain, due to which, the blood

on the earth was washed out and could not be taken. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and returned back to the Police Station. He has

stated that in the late night, the relatives came back with the dead body of the deceased. He prepared the inquest report in the morning at about 6.00

A.M., on 28.5.2005, which he has proved and the same was marked Exhibit-3, and sent the dead body for  post-mortem examination. He raided

the house of the accused, but he was found absconding. On 30.5.2005 on a secret information, he again raided the village and the accused was

apprehended, while he was fleeing away. His confessional statement was recorded, on the basis of which, one knife was recovered from his house,

kept concealed in a plastic bag, and the seizure list was prepared in the presence of the witnesses and the copy thereof was also given to the accused,

whereupon, he had put his thumb impression. He has also proved the confessional statement, which was marked Exhibit-4, and the seizure list was

marked Exhibit-1/2. He has stated that after completing the investigation, he submitted the charge-sheet in this case. In his cross-examination, this

witness has stated that the clothes of the deceased were blood stained, but it could not be seized. He has also stated that that the wound of the

deceased was bandaged.

There was no blood stains on the recovered knife. He has denied the suggestion of making faulty investigation

The statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein he has denied the evidence against him. However, no question

was put to him regarding recovery of the knife on the basis of his confessional statement. No evidence was adduced by the defence. On the basis of

the evidence on record, the accused appellant was found guilty, convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court below, for the offence as aforesaid.

Learned amicus curiae and learned counsel for the appellant have submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence,

passed by the Trial Court below, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, as the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge against the accused

beyond all reasonable doubts. It is submitted by learned counsel, that there are contradictions in the evidence of the eyewitnesses as some of them

have stated that the deceased was assaulted in the chest, where as the others have stated that the deceased was assaulted on his stomach. It is

submitted by learned amicus curiae appointed by the Court for the appellant, that no question was put to the accused in his statement recorded under

Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., regarding the recovery of knife on the basis of his confessional statement, and as such, this circumstance could not be

taken against the accused for his conviction. Learned counsels also placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in Lallu Manjhi

and Anr. Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in AIR 2003 SC 854, wherein it is held that if the witnesses present at the place of occurrence are not

examined, the blood stains are not sent for forensic examination and the genesis of the root cause is not proved, the conviction could not be sustained

in the eyes of law. Learned counsels submitted in alterative, that in any view of the matter, since the occurrence had taken place due to collision

between the accused and the deceased, and in the spur of moment after an altercation, as stated by P.W.-1 Radho Das, the offence cannot be said to

be made out under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather the offence, if any, is made out only under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code, for which, the appellant has been sufficiently punished.Â

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer and has submitted that the prosecution has been able to bring home the

charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, inasmuch as, all the witnesses have stated that while the accused was carrying meat and

rice from the place of worship and the deceased was coming from the opposite side, both of them collided, due to which, the rice and meat fell down,

whereupon, the accused assaulted the deceased by knife. It is also submitted that since the assault was made on the abdomen, it cannot be said that

there was no intention to cause the death of the deceased. Even the wound sustained by the deceased, as proved by P.W.-12 Dr. Suresh Chandra

Sharma and P.W.-8 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, clearly show that the wound was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Learned

counsel accordingly, submitted that the offence is clearly made out against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and there is no

illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below, and this appeal is fit to be dismissed.

Having heard counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that the prosecution case is fully supported by P.W.-2

Mahendra Ravidas, P.W.-5 Ganesh Yadav, P.W.-6 Bijay Yadav, P.W.-7 Baldev Yadav P.W.-9 Rameshwar Mahto, the father-in-law of the

deceased and P.W.-10 Most. Chhakni Devi, the wife of the deceased, and all of them have clearly stated that the deceased was assaulted by the

accused by knife simply for the reason that there was collision between the accused and the deceased, due to which, the food articles, which were

being carried by the accused, had fallen down. The other prosecution witnesses P.W.-3 Munni Rai and P.W.-4 Nandlal Modi have also supported the

prosecution case as hearsay witnesses, out of whom, P.W.-3 was present at the spot. He was taking his meal in the feast, when he heard the

connotation that the accused had assaulted the deceased and he saw the deceased in injured condition. P.W.-4 Nandlal Modi had reached the place

of occurrence later, and he was informed that the accused had assaulted the deceased by knife. Though P.W.-1 Radho Das has turned hostile, but he

has fully supported the prosecution case partly as eyewitness and partly as hearsay witness. He has supported the fact about the collision between the

deceased and the accused, while food articles were being carried by the accused and due to collision, food articles of the accused had fallen down, but

he has turned hostile thereafter, and stated that he heard that the accused had assaulted the deceased  by knife, due to which, he subsequently, died.

The oral evidence of these  witnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.-12 Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma, who had examined

the deceased at Rajdhanwar Hospital, while he was alive, and he has proved the injury report as Exhibit-5. He has stated that the condition of the

patient was serious, due to which, he had referred the deceased to RIIMS, Ranchi. P.W.-8 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, while performing the post-

mortem examination on the dead body, had also found the same wound, which was cavity deep and intestinal coil was perforated, which clearly

shows that the injury caused upon the deceased was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause the death. He has also proved the post-mortem

report as Exhibit-2. The contention of the learned counsels for the appellant that there is contradiction in the evidence of the eyewitnesses regarding

the site of injury, is only a minor contradiction, and not at all fatal to the prosecution. There is also no merit in the contention of learned counsels for the

appellant that in view of the fact that the occurrence had taken place in the spur of the moment, the offence cannot be said to be made out under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, rather the offence, if any, is made out only under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, in view of the

fact that the accused had acted in a very cruel manner in assaulting the deceased by knife, simply for the reason that due the collusion between the

two, in a rush where the feast was going on, the rice and meat being carried by the accused had fallen down. Though it is a fact that in the statement

of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., no question was put to him regarding the recovery of knife on the basis of his confessional

statement, but the fact remains that all the eyewitnesses examined in the case have stated in unequivocal terms that this accused had assaulted the

deceased by knife, and this evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence of both the Doctors, namely, P.W.-12 Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma

and P.W.-8 Dr. Kamleshwar Prasad, and the injury report and the post-mortem report proved by them as Exhibits-5 and 2 respectively. We are of the

considered view that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and there is

no illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence, passed by the Trial Court below, worth interference by this Court.Â

For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 26th of February, 2008 and the Order of

sentence dated 29th of February, 2008, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.-I, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 131 of 2006,

convicting and sentencing the appellant Ram Prasad Rai, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which, we hereby, affirm. The

appellant Ram Prasad Rai is already in custody, undergoing the sentence.Â

Before parting with this Judgment, we find that P.W.-10Â Most. Chhakni Devi, the widow of the deceased is the victim of crime and she needs

to be adequately compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, under Section 357-A of the Cr.P.C. We accordingly, direct the Member

Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, to take appropriate steps in this regard, in consultation with the Secretary of the

concerned D.L.S.A., so that P.W.-10 Most. Chhakni Devi is duly compensated under the Victim Compensation Scheme, at an early date. Let a copy

of this Judgment be sent to the Member Secretary, Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, Ranchi, for the needful.Â

We also acknowledge the fact that we have been given able assistance by the learned amicus curie Sri Rajesh Kumar Dubey, whom we had

appointed as the amicus curie for the appellant in custody, as no one was appearing for him. Only when the hearing in the case was started on the

subsequent date, learned counsel for the appellant appeared and prayed for being heard, and we allowed him also to make his submissions. We

accordingly, direct the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, to make the payment of prescribed remuneration to the learned amicus curie

appointed by this Court. Let a copy of this Judgment be also sent to the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Ranchi, for the needful.

We do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly, dismissed. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned

forthwith, along with a copy of this Judgment.Â