Surajdeo Ram vs State of Jharkhand

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2005 and 19.03.2005 respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.IV, Palamu at Daltongunj, in connection with S.T. No. 132/03, corresponding to G.R. No. 1315/99, arising out of Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 101/99, whereby the appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149/148/342 of the Indian Penal Code and 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148, rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code and one year imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms Act. The sentences so passed were directed to run concurrently.

The facts, appearing from the fardbeyan of Rameshwar Singh, is that on 21.11.1999, at 10:40 hours, near Village Ekauni, within Hussainabad Police Station, District Palamau, in brief, are that in the morning, at 6:00 a.m., Baijnath Singh (son of the informant) left home to call a Carpenter from Village Ekauni. When he did not return within reasonable time, the informant got worried and proceeded to see his son Baijnath. It is disclosed that on the way, near canal, the informant had seen his son Baijnath, accompanied by Lakhan Mistry, coming to village, but, in the meantime, three persons reached to the place and surrounded Baijnath. The informant apprehending danger, ran towards his son, but, till then, those persons compelled Lakhan to flee away from the place. The informant identified the appellants and their associates, who were armed with pistol etc. Appellant Shiv Ram @ Jugal Ram (now dead) opened fire from his pistol causing injuries to Baijnath on his abdomen as a result he fell down. Thereafter, appellant Surajdeo Ram keeping the barrel of the gun at temporal region of Baijnath opened fire. Before the informant reached to his son, he died at the spot. The miscreants after committing murder of Baijnath, fled away along with their associates, who were waiting at some distance. They also raised slogan "Enkalab Zindabad".

The motive behind murder has been assigned that the appellant and his associates were under impression that prior to the date of occurrence, appellant was apprehended by the police at the instance of the deceased and they were suspecting that the deceased was the informer of the police.

On the basis of the fardbeyan of Rameshwar Singh, PW11, Hussainabad P.S. Case No. 101/99, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 342, 302, 120B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act was registered against the appellant and his associates.

The investigation was carried out, charge-sheet was submitted and accordingly, cognizance was taken against the appellant and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 132/03.

Initially, six accused persons, namely, (1) Surajdeo Ram (Appellant) (2) Lalan Paswan@ Suraj Singh (3) Shiv Paswan @ Yugal Ram (4) Shankar Chauhan (5) Ashok Paswan and (6) Ramashray Paswan, were put on trial. Out of aforesaid six accused persons, Lalan Paswan@ Suraj Singh and Ashok Paswan had absconded and therefore, case of remaining four accused persons was split up from them. At the conclusion of trial, Surajdeo Ram (Appellant)and Shiv Paswan @ Yugal Ram (now dead) have been held guilty, as indicated above, but remaining two accused persons Shankar Chauhan and Ramashray Paswan stood acquitted from the charges. Shiv Paswan @ Yugal Ram had also preferred this appeal and during pendency of the appeal, he was granted provisional bail but absconded and did not surrender. It is brought on record by the learned A.P.P. that Shiv Paswan @ Yugal Ram is now no more in this world and therefore, this appeal be heard only on behalf of the appellant Surajdeo Ram.

Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that PW2 to PW6, PW9 and PW12 have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution case. PW1 Balkesh Singh happens to be the witness of inquest and he has proved the signature appearing on the inquest report. Dr. Birendra Prasad, PW7 is the Doctor, who had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Baijnath Singh. I.O. has not been examined. Therefore, no independent witness has supported the prosecution case though the occurrence took place during day hours and that too near the canal surrounded by field, in which, harvesting of crop was going on.

Jagdish Singh, PW8 and Rameshwar Singh, PW11 have supported the prosecution case and they are none else but the brother and father of the deceased. As a matter of fact, they have not seen the occurrence and they reached to the place after the occurrence was over. They found dead body of Baijnath lying near the canal and after collecting information, the appellant and his associates were named in the fardbeyan. As per evidence of PW 8 & PW11, at the time of occurrence, they were nearer to the deceased at a distance of 1015 steps, but, surprisingly enough, they had not intervene to save the life of Baijnath Singh. They have deposed that before they reach to the deceased, occurrence was over. If it was so, why they were not targeted by the appellant, is a question to be answered. Both the witnesses are highly interested witnesses. On cross-examination done to PW11, it appears that some sort of rivalries were prevailing in the village between the extremists of M.C.C. and Ranbir Sena formed by Rajputs. The deceased was the member of the latter fraction.

Learned Trial Judge has wrongly held the appellant guilty and mis-appreciated the evidence on record.

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the argument and submitted that the appellant and his associates are members of extremists organization, known as M.C.C. and nobody dare to speak against them and that is the reason, the villagers, who had been examined, did not raise their voice against any of the accused, including the appellant. It is pointed out that PW2, who had been accompanying the deceased, at the time of occurrence, had supported the factum of occurrence but did not identify the appellant and his associates due to fear. Therefore, contention made by the informant, PW11 in his fardbeyan finds full corroboration from the statement of PW2, who was accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence. PW8 has also corroborated the occurrence. There is direct allegation against the appellant that he opened fire aiming at temporal region of the deceased and that injury caused by him find support from the post mortem report, proved by PW7.

After hearing the rival submissions, examining the lower court records and perusing the impugned judgment, we do agree with the submissions advanced by the learned A.P.P. that PW2 is an independent witness and he has supported the genesis of the occurrence as well as factum of occurrence. According to informant, the deceased had gone to Village Ekauni to call a Carpenter and the Carpenter was Lakhan Mistry, PW2, who had been accompanying the deceased at the time of occurrence. PW2 has supported this fact that he was requested by the deceased to accompany him to do some work and conceding his request, he along with the deceased was coming to Village Malwaria (village of the deceased). On the way, when they crossed a culvert and proceeded ahead, the occurrence took place. 3 to 4 persons armed with pistol, gun etc. appeared. One of them asked this witness to go back to his Village Ekauni. Some of them caught hold of the deceased and while he was running towards his Village Ekauni, he heard sound of two rounds of firing.

According to the statements of PW8 & PW11, two shots were fired on the person of the deceased, first shot was fired by Jugal Ram, whereas, second shot was fired by the appellant Surajdeo Ram, which created wound of entry at right ear 1�" x1"x cavity deep margin charred and inverted wound of exit at left ear 2�"x 1�"x cavity deep communicating with the wound of entry margin. Therefore, the injuries caused by this appellant, as disclosed by PW8 and PW11, find full corroboration and description of injuries given by PW7 in the post mortem report. Charred near the wound further suggests that shot was fired from close range and that is the evidence of PW11.

Learned counsel for the Defence has raised the point that place of occurrence has not been proved due to non-examination of I.O. The description of place of occurrence given by PW8 and PW11 are not consistent. We are not agree with the argument so advanced because of the fact that PW8 in para14 and 15 and PW11 in para29 and 30 have described the place of occurrence, which is consistent. Besides the above, it is a case of direct evidence. There are two eyewitnesses, who had described the overt act committed by each of the appellants. Manner of occurrence described is consistent. The injuries inflicted by the appellant, as described by two witnesses, find support from the post mortem report.

In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the same stands dismissed.