Patna High Court
Ram Nath Nonia vs State Of Bihar on 18 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ318
Author: M.L. Visa
Bench: D.P.S. Choudhary, M.L. Visa
JUDGMENT M.L. Visa, J.
1. This appeal by sole appellant Ram Nath Nonia is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-2-1989 passed by the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj in Sessions Trial No. 44 of 1988 convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo R.I. for life under Section 302 of IPC.
2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on the night of 27-5-87 Jagernath Nonia, son of informant after taking meal was sleeping on a cot in a 'sahan' (open land) situated north to the house of appellant whereas his mother, informant, (PW 3) was sleeping in the 'angan' of her house. At about 2.00 AM in the night the informant woke up on hearing some moaning sound (in Fardbeyan, sound of cutting) and when she came out of her house she found the appellant giving a 'garasi' (an axe) blow on the neck of her deceased son Jagernath Nonia and she further found that he had already given some more 'garasi' blows on her son. When the informant raised alarm and tried to catch hold of appellant the appellant ran to assault her with 'garasi'. On 'hulla' of informant her daughter-in-law Sonia Devi alias Sita Devi (PW 1) also came there running and the appellant thereafter fled away with the 'garasi'. The informant found that the neck of her son was cut and he had injury on his right wrist also and blood had fallen on the ground. The villagers, namely, Rajendra Nonia (not examined), Ganga Nonia (PW 9), Promod Kumar Mishra (not examined), Swaminath Upadhaya (PW 10) and others arrived there and the informant told them about the occurrence. On the next day i.e., on 28-5-87 at about 7.00 A.M. Rabindra Nonia (PW 4), minor son of Somari Mahto (PW 5) found the appellant hiding with blood stained 'garasi' below the staircase of his house. He then raised alarm on which the villagers, namely, Rajendra Nonia (not examined) , Ganga Nonia (PW 9), Vishwanath Nonia (not examined) and others came there and they apprehended the appellant with blood stained 'garasi'. Mukhiya Swaminath Upadhya (PW 10) sent informant to police out post through Chaukidar and from there A.S.I. Basant Mr. Singh (PW 12) came and recorded the Fardbeyan (Ext. 4) of informant at about 11.00 A.M. About the motive it is alleged that the deceased son of informant used to work with one Jogendra Nonia as a labourer and the appellant had some dispute with Jogendra Nonia and due to this reason he had asked the deceased not to work for Jogendra Nonia but the deceased did not obey him.
3. Basant Nr. Singh (PW 12) sent the Fardbeyan of informant to the Mirganj P.S. where a formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3) was drawn up against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and he prepared inquest report (Ext. 5) for the dead body of the deceased and sent the dead body for post mortem examination and took up the investigation of the case and arrested the appellant who was produced before him by the villagers along with a blood stained 'garasi' (Ext. 1). The I.O. prepared a production list (Ext. 6) for the 'garasi' and he inspected the place of occurrence and found that blood had fallen on the ground where the cot on which the deceased was lying was kept. He seized the blood stained earth and prepared seizure list (Ext. 7) and sent the blood stained earth and 'garasi' for forensic examination. He also prepared sketch map (Ext. 8) of the P.O. and after recording the statements of witnesses and receipt of report of post mortem examination (Ext. 1) and report of chemical examination (Ext. 9) for blood stained earth and 'garasi' submitted charge sheet against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The cognizance of the case was taken and the appellant was put on trial after framing of charge under Section 302 of IPC and he was found guilty by the Court below and, accordingly, was convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC.
4. The case of appellant as it appears from the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses is that no occurrence as alleged ever took place and he has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of Mukhia of the village, who happens to be friend of Somari Mahto (PW 5) from whose house blood stained 'garasi' was recovered in order to save Somari Mahto.
5. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. Yogendra Mahto (PW 7) and Ganga Mahto (PW 9) have been tendered. Tej Nr Singh (PW 11) is a formal witness who has proved the formal F.I.R. (Ext. 3). Bharat Prasad Roy (PW 13) is also a formal witness who brought a report (Ext. 9) along with a sealed box from the Forensic Science Laboratory. Bhagwati Devi (PW 3) is the informant and mother of deceased. Sita Devi (PW 1) who has been described in Fardbeyan as Sonia Devi is the wife of deceased. Dr. T.N. Singh (PW 2) had conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. Basant Nr. Singh (PW 12) is the I.O. of this case. Somari Mahto (PW 5), Sudershan Mishra (PW 6), Baidya Nath Mahto (PW 8) are the witnesses, who had gone to the house of informant on hearing 'hulla' and had seen the deceased with cut injuries on his neck and were told about the occurrence by the informant. Out of these witnesses Somari Mahto (PW 5) and Sudershan Mishra (PW 6) are also witnesses on the point of arrest of appellant by villagers in the house of Somari Mahto (PW 5). Rabindra Nonia (PW 4), who is the son of Somari Mahto (PW 5) is a witness who had seen the appellant hiding with 'garasi' in the morning of next day of occurrence below staircase of his house. Swami Nath Upadhya (PW 10) is also a witness on this point.
6. Dr. T.N. Singh (PW 2) in his evidence has stated that on 29-5-87 at about 5.15 P.M. he held post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Jagernath Nonia and found one incised wound on the dorsum of right hand extending up to webs of 2nd and 3rd finger 2 1/2" x 1" deep to muscle and one incised wound below left knee joint of the size of 1 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2", a sharp cut injury through and through of neck except 1/3rd of neck on right side of neck and the structures involved were muscles, large vessel, large vein, trachea, Oesophagus and cervical vertebra at the level of 5th and 6th with through and through cut of spinal cord and wound was 9" circular and 6" deep up to the bone and a sharp cut injury over the neck just below and at the level of infraclavicular region involving cut through at the level of medial 2/3rd of clavicle.
7. According to him all the injuries were caused by a sharp cutting weapon which may be a 'garasi' and the injury which was found on the right side of neck was sufficient in ordinary course to cause death and the nature of this injury suggested that instantaneous death would have been caused. About the time of death his opinion was that it was within 24 hours from time of post mortem examination. So the evidence of doctor proves that the deceased had received injuries caused by sharp cutting weapon which may be a 'garasi' and it corroborates the time of death as given by the prosecution. Now it has to be seen what evidence has been led on behalf of prosecution against the appellant for proving that the appellant was responsible for inflicting the injuries to the deceased which resulted into his death.
8. Bhagwati Devi (PW 3), the informant and mother of deceased, in her evidence has stated that on the night of occurrence she was sleeping in her house whereas her deceased son was sleeping outside her house on a cot and in the midnight she woke up on hearing some sound and when he came out of her house she found appellant giving 'garasi' blow on the neck of the deceased. Her daughter-in-law Sita Devi (PW 1) also came out of her house and saw the occurrence and the appellant thereafter fled away and by that time her deceased son had already died and he had injuries on his neck and on his arm and on 'hulla' raised by her villagers came there and she and her daughter-in-law narrated the occurrence to them. She has further stated that the appellant was subsequently caught in the house of Rabindra Nonia (PW 4). The defence has given her a suggestion that deceased was in the company of bad elements. She has denied this suggestion. Sita Devi (PW 1), the wife of deceased, supporting the evidence of informant has stated that on the night of occurrence she was sleeping at some distance from her husband and she woke up on hearing moaning sound of her husband and her mother-in-law who was sleeping besides her also woke up and she saw that appellant sitting on chest of her husband and gave 'garasi' blow on her husband and the appellant fled away. She has further stated that her husband died instantaneously after receiving blows of 'garasi'. Somari Mahto (PW 5), Sundershan Mishra (PW 6) and Baidhya Nath Mahto (PW 8) have stated that on the night of occurrence they after hearing 'hulla' raised by informant went to the house of informant and found the son of informant lying dead with bleeding injuries on his neck and informant and the wife of deceased told them that the appellant had given 'garasi' blows on the neck of the deceased. Somari Mahto (PW 5) has stated that when he reached the house of informant he had seen the appellant with 'garasi' who on seeing him and other witnesses fled away.
9. Rabindra Nonia (PW 4), a boy aged about 6 years, at the time of his examination as a witness in the Court, has stated that on a day he had seen the appellant hiding below the staircase of his house with a 'garasi' and he then came running to villagers and told them that the appellant was hiding in his house and thereafter the appellant was caught by the villagers. Somari Mahto (PW 5), who is father of Rabindra Nonia (PW 4) in his evidence has supported the evidence of his son and has stated that the appellant on the morning of next day of the occurrence was found hiding with 'garasi' in his house below the staircase from where he was caught by the villagers. Similarly Baidhya Nath Mahto (PW 8) and Swami Nath Upadhya (PW 10) have stated that the appellant was caught in the house of Somari Mahto (PW 5) on the morning of next day of the occurrence.
10. The evidence of Bhagwati Devi (PW 3), the informant and mother of deceased and Sita Devi (PW 1), the wife of deceased, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence, fully supports the case of prosecution and after going through their evidence we find that there is nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. A mere suggestion to wife of deceased was given that she had not seen any occurrence. She has -denied this suggestion. Similarly a suggestion to informant was given that she had not seen any occurrence. She has also denied this suggestion. The evidence of mother and wife of deceased coupled with the evidence of witnesses who had reached the house of informant on hearing 'hulla' and who had seen the deceased in a pool of blood with cut injuries on his neck and were told by the informant and wife of deceased that the appellant had given 'garasi' blow to the deceased and the evidence of witnesses who had found the appellant hiding with a blood stained 'garasi' in the house of Somari Mahto (PW 5) on the morning of next day of occurrence which the appellant himself in his examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has admitted that he was apprehended in the house of Somari Mahto where he was hiding below the staircase but without 'garasi' fully support the case of prosecution against the appellant. Basant Nr. Singh (PW 12) the I.O. of this case has also stated in his evidence that the appellant was handed over to him by the villagers and a blood stained 'garasi' was also produced before him by the informant and he had sent that 'garasi' and blood stained earth which he had collected from the place of occurrence for chemical examination. The chemical examination report (Ext. 9) shows that the 'garasi' and seized earth contained blood. All these facts taken together leave no room of any doubt about the commission of murder of the deceased, son of informant by the appellant by means of 'garasi'.
11. The learned lawyer appearing on behalf of appellant has raised only one point that motive of the appellant has not been proved in this case by prosecution. According to him in the Fardbeyan the informant stated that the deceased was working as a labourer of one Jogendra Nonia with whom the appellant had enmity and he had asked the deceased not to work for Jogendra Nonia to which the deceased had not agreed and for this reason the appellant committed murder of deceased but in evidence the informant or any other witnesses has not stated this fact. He has further stated that Sita Devi (PW 1), the wife of deceased, in her cross-examination has stated that her husband used to work in Punjab whereas informant in her cross-examination has stated that her deceased son used to live in her house. According to him these contradictory statements by the mother and wife of the deceased completely demolishes the case of prosecution on the point of motive and in absence of motive it cannot be said that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge against the appellant. We are unable to accept this submission. In a case like present one where the ocular evidence on the point of commission of murder by the appellant is explicit and is fully supported by the medical evidence and the evidence of other witnesses, who immediately after the occurrence reached the place of occurrence, saw the deceased with injuries and were told by the inmates of the house about the commission of murder by appellant and the evidence of witnesses, who apprehended the appellant after some hours of the occurrence withablood stained 'garasi', the question of proof of motive does not remain of such importance that the absence of proof of motive will render the entire case of prosecution unbelievable. So considering the entire evidence on record and the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant we find that the prosecution has proved the charge of murder against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.
12. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of Court below convicting and sentencing the appellant, who is already in jail custody is hereby confirmed.
D.P.S. Choudhary, J.
13. I agree.