Sukhram Lohra son of Bandhan Lohra vs State Of Jharkhand

Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J

Originally this appeal was filed by 11 appellants, out of them appellant No.2 Ajit Minj, appellant No.5 Kristopher Kujur, appellant No.8 Daud Ekka, appellant No.9 Sameriyus Tigga and appellant No.10 Alexius Khess have died during pendency of appeal and their appeal has been abated vide order dated 12.05.2026. Now, rests of the serving appellants havebeen renumbered.

I have already heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Ashish Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Sardhu Mahto, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.

Instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 13.07.2004 and order of sentence dated 14.07.2004 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Gumla in Sessions Trial No.49 of 2004, whereby and whereunder all the appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 307, 452, 342 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and appellant No.1 Sukhram Lohra, Ajit Minj (deceased), appellant No.2 Rajesh Kujur, appellant No.3 Sabial Ekka, Kristopher Kujur (deceased), appellant No.4 Soveriyus Khess, appellant No.5 Rudolf Minj and Daud Ekka (deceased) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (R.I.) for five years under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C. The above appellants (including deceased appellants) were further sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 342/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for three years for the offence under Section 452/34 of the I.P.C. The appellants Alexius Khess (deceased), Sameriyus Khess (deceased) and Mariam Krustula Khess (appellant No.6) were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two and a half years under Section 307/34 of the I.P.C.; R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 342/34 of the I.P.C. and R.I. for one year for the offence under Section 452/34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.500/- each with default stipulation. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant Javier Tigga (P.W.13) is permanent resident of Village Ekamba, P.S. Dumri, District Gumla and presently posted as Customs Appraiser and reside at B/144 Customs Quarter G.E. Block, Sector-3, Salt Lake City P.S. Vidhan Nagar, District 24 Pargana (West Bengal). It is alleged that informant's neice Suman Tigga (P.W.1) informed through telephonic message that her father Bernad Tigga has been brutally assaulted by villagers. Hence, informant along with his wife Manjula Tigga (P.W.12) came to his in-laws house at Nawadih Katai Toli on 29.10.2003. Thereafter, along with his wife and other relatives namely Kanti Paswan, John Kishore and Agustin Toppo came to Village Ekamba at about 02:00 p.m. and saw that his elder brother Bernad Tigga was tied with chain by both hands and feet and lodged in cattle shed. The informant came to know from Bernad Tigga and Suman Tigga that on 29.09.2003 at about 11:00 p.m., villagers came to their home and assaulted him with danda levelling imputation of mentally ill and tied with chain all his four limbs and put in the cattle shed. It was also disclosed that prior to this about three days, Bernad was tied with a jackfruit tree. It is further alleged that due to long handcuffing and tied with chain both hands and feet of Bernad were swelling and wounded and due to starvation, Bernad was in a dying condition. Bernad and neice of informant further disclosed the names of 11 accused persons who have committed such a ghastly offence. It is alleged that the injured Bernad was brought to police station under same condition andwritten report of informant was submitted.

On the basis of above information, Dumri P.S. Case No. 39 of 2003 was registered for the offences under Sections 452, 341, 342, 344, 323, 307, 506/34 of the I.P.C.

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against 11 named accused persons for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions where Sessions Trial No.49 of 2004 was registered. The accused persons denied from the charges and claimed to be tried.

In the course of trial, altogether 16 witnesses were examined by prosecution apart from several documentary evidences.

On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence and plea of innocence.

The learned Trial Court after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record arrived at conclusion of guilt of the appellants and sentenced them as stated above.

Learned counsel for the appellants assailing the impugned judgment has submitted that main witnesses of facts including the injured are interested witnesses and other local villagers including one of the brother of the injured has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Therefore, prosecution story has not been corroborated from any independent witness. There is general and omnibus allegation that about more than 20 persons arrived in the night at the houseof Bernad Tigga and put handcuff and bedi ¼csM+h½ and tied him for three days with jackfruit tree and thereafter, locked in a room which was used as a cattle shed. The appellants have been involved in this case merely on disclosure of some of inimical villagers. It is also stated by witnesses that Bernad Tigga has committed murder of his own wife for which he was in jail custody about two and a half years, when he was released on bail his mental condition was abnormal and he was creating nuisance in the village. Therefore, the villagers handcuffed him so that he may not cause any nuisance. The appellants have been involved only on the basis of suspicion and enmity. There is no direct evidence against the appellants for commission of any of the offences charged against them. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses available on record and acted upon the testimony of inimical and interested witnesses without evaluating their evidence with proper care and caution. Therefore, offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is not made out in this case rather the same falls under Section 325 of the I.P.C. Hence, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

In the alternative, it is contended that altogether 11 accused persons faced trial in this case and during the pendency of appeal, five appellants namely Ajit Minj, Kristopher Kujur, Daud Ekka, Sameriyus Tigga and Alexius Khess against whom mainallegation was levelled in the F.I.R. have been died. It is further submitted that the incident is of the year 2003. No physical assault was given by any of the present appellant to the injured Bernad, who sustained injuries due to iron cuffs and bedis put for a pretty long period of one month. The appellants have paid Rs.500/- each total Rs.5,500/- at the time of granting bail to them as victim compensation and have also remained in custody for more than six months. There is no definite opinion about nature of injuries sustained by the injured Bernad rather some lacerated wounds were caused and his injury report shows that it may be grievous injury but not intended to cause death. The maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment has been imposed against the appellants. The appellants have no criminal antecedent save and except this case, they have not been involved in any other case. The incident with the injured took place due to remorse in the village about commission of murder of his own wife by Bernad Tigga as well as his mental illness after that incident. The appellants have sustained the agony of trial for more than two decades and also remained in custody for six months and have sufficiently been punished for their guilt. Therefore, the sentence of appellants may be reduced to the imprisonment alreadyundergone.

On the other hand, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellants and submitted that there is direct evidence against the appellants that they have put iron cuffs "Bedis" on both legs and hands of the victim Bernad, who himself has been examined in this case as P.W.14 and categorically proved the involvement of present appellants. The allegation of mental illness of the victim is also a false and concocted story. The victim has been examined during trial on oath and fully supported his case and also denied that he was suffering from any mental illness. The whole evidence of the victim does not indicate any mental illness and his demeanor has also not been noted by the concerned Trial Court in this connection. The conduct of appellants has put the victim under vegetative condition for a period of one month resulting in severe injuries to him as has been corroborated from the evidence of Dr. Rameshwar Kumar Ramesh (P.W.16). Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the appellants do not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. In the matter of sentence also, the nature of offence committed by the appellants does not warrant any leniency or sympathetical approach in the matter of sentence rather they have been moderately handled while hearing on the point of sentence and adequate punishment has been awarded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, this appeal has no merit and fit to be dismissed.

I have gone through the record of the case along with the impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of both side.

The only point for consideration is that as to "whether the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court suffers from any serious error of law calling for any interferenceby way of this appeal ?"

Before proceeding to adjudicate upon above point, it is necessary to take brief resume of oral testimony of the witnesses examined during trial. The most important and sterling witness of prosecution is the victim Bernad Tigga himself, who has been examined as P.W.14. According to his evidence, on the date of occurrence at about 11 - 12 hours in night about 22 to 25 villagers among them, he identified the 11 accused persons namely Sukhram Lohra, Ajit Minj (now deceased), Rajesh kujur, sabial Ekka, Kristopher Kujur (now deceased), Soveriyus Khess, Rudolf Minj, Daud Ekka (now deceased), Sameriyus Tigga (now deceased), Alexius Khess (now deceased) and Mariam Krustula Khess entered into his house and forcibly put him handcuff and bedi on both hand and legs. He has further deposed that about three days and three nights, he was tied with a jackfruit tree. Thereafter, he was put in cattle shed for one month. He informed his daughter Suman Tigga for releasing his cuff and bedi, his daughter requested to the accused persons to take necessary steps in this regard, then they were asking Rs.3,000/- which was also given to them by daughter of this witness. In spite of that they did not take any step to release him rather said that till death he will remain in same condition. Thereafter, his brother Javier Tigga was informed by his daughter who arrived from Calcutta and lodged this case. He has also produced six photographs taken in the hospital which are marked X for identification.

In his cross-examination also, he reiterates that his statement was recorded in the hospital. He also admits that he has remained in jail custody for two and a half years in connection with murder of his wife, but says that he was falsely implicated and he also reiterates that the accused persons and other villagers were saying him as mad person and put the handcuff and bedi.

P.W.13 Javier Tigga is the informant-cum-brother of the victim Bernad Tigga. He has also proved the contents of his written report and has stated that he came to know from his brother and neice that the accused persons tied his brother after putting handcuffs and bedi in hands and both legs. Bernad was tied with jackfruit for three days and thereafter, put in cattle shed for one month. After receiving this information, this witness came from Calcutta and get medical examination of his brother and also his treatment. There is nothing in his cross-examination to rebut his aforesaid testimony.

P.W.1 Suman Tigga is the daughter of victim Bernad Tigga. She has also supported the prosecution story and submitted that on 29.09.2003 at about 11:00 p.m., all the named 11 accused persons (present appellants) entered into her house and his father was handcuffed and took bedi on his both legs and tied for three days in a jackfruit tree, thereafter, lodged in cattle shed. When she requested the accused persons to get released her father, then they asked Rs.3,000/- which was also given to the accused persons but they did not take any steps to release her father. Thereafter, she informed to her uncle Javier Tigga who returned from Calcutta and lodged this case. There is nothing in her cross-examination to rebut the aforesaid testimony.

P.W.2 Martin Tigga is the brother of the victim Bernad Tigga. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. According to him, Bernad Tigga had become mad after committing murder of his wife, thereafter, village Mahila Mandal and Members of Yuva Manch put handcuff and bedi to him so that he could not create nuisance in the village.

P.W.3 Prakash Tigga has also stated that Bernad was handcuffed and put on bedi by villagers due to which he sustained injuries. He also states that Bernad had become mentally ill.

P.W.4 Bhusan Khess has been declared hostile.

P.W.5 Augustine Toppo came to know about the occurrence from informant and he also with Javier Tigga went to Village Ekamba ¼,dkEck½ and saw that Bernad was put under handcuffandbedi.

P.W.6 Kanti Paswan has also seen the handcuff and bedi while he proceeded to Village Ekamba along with informant.

P.W.7 John Kishore Kujur has also gone to place of occurrence along with informant and saw Bernad Tigga put under handcuffand bedi.

P.W.8 Arjun Lohra has stated that on direction of police officers at Police Station, he has opened the cuffs and bedi of the victimin the hospital.

P.W.9 Ram Kisun Khess was also called upon by informant and he along with informant went to hospital and police station and saw the Bernad with handcuff and bedi who has sustained injuries. In the hospital, the cuff and bedi werecut and victim Bernad was released.

P.W.10 Sushma Marium Minj has also seen the victim in hospital where handcuff and bedi were opened and seizure list was prepared by police. She has also signed as a witness on the seizure list alongwithDr. RameshwarKumar.

P.W.11 Kamali Devi is hospital attendant at P.H.C., Dumri. She has also stated that the handcuff and bedi of Bernad was opened in the hospital and he had sustained injuries.

P.W.12 Manjula Tigga is the wife of informant. She is also a hearsay witness and saw the Bernad under injured condition put handcuff and bedi which was opened in hospital.

P.W.15 A.S.I. Ram Babu Rai is the Investigating officer of this case. After assuming the charge of investigation, he recorded the statement of informant and visited the place of occurrence and recorded statement of other witnesses. He has also prepared the seizure list of the broken cuffs and bedi. He has also arrested the accused persons and after completing investigation submitted charge-sheet.

In his cross-examination, the defencehas not drawn any attention about contradictions appearing in the evidence of any other prosecution witnesses.

P.W.16 Dr. Rameshwar Kumar Ramesh has medically examined Bernad Tigga on 29.10.2003 at about 11:30 p.m. and found follwings :-

(i) Lacerated wound by laceration and crussing of the muscles on left ancle joint 21 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm, caused by hard andblunt substances

(ii) Lacerated wound by laceration and crussing of muscles on the right ancle joint 21 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm, caused by hard andblunt substances

(iii) Lacerated wound by laceration and crussing of the muscle on and around the left wrist joint 16 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm, caused by hardand blunt substances.

He has opined that injuries may be caused by iron rods and all were grievous in nature. The above injuries were of about 20 days. The injury report is marked as Ext.5. He further states that if only iron cuffs are used such type of injury cannot be caused. He has not received any X-Ray report. He has prepared the injury report prior to opening of all the iron cuffs. He has not written about any fracture in his report.

From the aforesaid discussion of testimony of prosecution witnesses, it is crystal clear that the sole victim Bernad Tigga has consistently proved that the present appellants were involved in putting handcuff and bedi on his both hands and legs. He was tied with jackfruit tree for three days without supplying any food and water. Thereafter, he was lodged in cattle shed, where he was lying for one month. It is also proved that when his daughter Suman Tigga (P.W.1) requested the accused persons to get released his cuffs and bedis then they asked Rs.3,000/- and in spite of payment of the said money, no action was taken for his release. Thereafter, matter was informed to the brother of victim namely Javier Tigga who lodged this case. Due to putting handcuffs and iron bedis for pretty long period, the victim Bernad sustained severe injuries and undergone his treatment for pretty long period. It further appears that no material has been elicited in the cross-examination of witnesses showing any enmity with the accused persons/appellants rather a question by way of suggestion has been put that victim had become mentally ill and was creating nuisance in the village after being released on bail, therefore, the villagers and other Members of Mahila Mandal Samiti decided to put handcuff and bedi. From the trend of evidence given by the victim Bernad, there is no glimpse of any mentalillness appearing in his entire evidence. It appears that he has been falsely branded to be mentally ill person. Even if it may be assumed that the victim had lost mental balance after murder of his wife that itself cannot give any licence to the villagers to treat him in such type of inhumane manner rather any activities like creating nuisance at the hands of victim Bernad might have been complained to the authorities and he may be put to mental asylum but as against it, the conduct of appellants cannot be justified. It also appears that some photographs were taken at the hospital and also produced during trial which also shows pathetic condition of the victim.

The contention of appellants that all the witnesses are interested witnesses, cannot be sustained rather the victim, his brother and daughter all are very natural witnesses. Their testimony cannot be discarded merely on the ground of interestedness,unless it is proved that it was tainted with any ulterior motive.It further appears that the learned Trial Court has discussed in very minute detail oral as well as documentary evidence available on record and there appears nothing to take a different view from the concerned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court has passed a well considered judgment. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction of the appellants for the charges levelled against them. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissedon merits.

So far as quantum of sentence is concerned, it appears that for such a ghastly offence very moderate punishment has been awarded by the learned Trial Court. The appellants at the time of grant of bail by the High Court were directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- each and total Rs.5,500/- were deposited by them as condition of bail. There is no mitigating circumstance at all to reduce the quantum of sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants, particularly in view of long pendency of case for about two decades.

In view of above discussion and reasons, I do not find any valid ground to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants or extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. The appellants are directed to appear before the concerned Trial Court for sustaining the remaining period of sentence, if any, within a period of two months from the date of this judgment, failing which, the learned Trial Court shall take all coercive steps for their arrest and detention and to undergo the sentence awarded to the appellants.

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.