Jharkhand High Court
Prem Puran vs State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2015
Author: R.R. Prasad
Bench: R. R. Prasad, Pramath Patnaik
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1401 of 2005
Against the judgment of conviction dated 29.7.2005 and order of
sentence dated 1.8.2005 passed by 1st Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 220 of 2002.
-----
Prem Puran, S/o Late Guruwa Puran, R/o Vill-Gosaidih,
PS Bundu, Distt. Ranchi ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
For the Appellant : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Binod Singh, A.P.P.
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK
By Court :- Appellant-Prem Puran stood trial for committing murder of
Sukra Puran. The court having found the appellant guilty convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment dated 29.7.2005 passed in S.T. No. 220 of 2002 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 1.8.2005.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Sukra Puran, father of the informant-Chaitnya Puran-P.W.5 and Giridhar Puran, had planted tomato saplings in his backyard a few days before on account of which there had been an altercation with this appellant, residing in the neighbourhood. On the day of occurrence i.e. on 30.10.2001 at 5am while the deceased- Sukra Puran was fencing the said piece of land on which saplings of tomato had been planted, informant-Chaitnya Puran-P.W.5 and his brother Giridhari Puran-P.W.2, who were in the house, heard distress sound of his father coming from the backyard. On hearing, both of them rushed to the backyard of the house where they saw this appellant assaulting their father over the back portion of his head and neck with 'farsa'. When they ran to save their father, the appellant fled away from there. They found their father dead whose back portion of head was cut and a lot of blood had been spilled over there.
Informant-Chaitnya Puran-P.W.5 along with his brother-Giridhar Puran went to the Bundu police station and informed about it. Thereupon, V.K. Singh, Officer Incharge of Bundu police station came to the village where he recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.3) of the informant at 5.45am wherein the informant narrated about the incident, as has been stated above. On the basis of such fardbeyan, an FIR was lodged and the matter was taken up for investigation during which the Investigating Officer held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report (Ext.1) and sent the dead-body for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Ram Sevak Sahu-P.W.7 who upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased found the following injuries :-
Incised wound i. 2' x 4cm x bone deep on left side of head lower part starting from the left cheek prominence to left occipital region of head across the left pinna cutting the underlying bone and brain matter. A portion of brain matter had drained out. On inspection of the wound one tissue tag was found projecting from a posterior end of the wound indicating the minimum of two blows and there is presence of blood and blood clot in the cranial cavity.
ii. 8 x 1cm x soft issue left postero lateral neck upper part. iii. 3 x 1cm x bone deep left elbow back cutting the underlying bone partially.
iv. 3 x 1cm x soft issue left wrist back.
v. 6 x 1cm x soft issue right forearm back.
vi. 7 x 1/2 cm x soft issue on right hand and back.
vii. 9 x 1cm x bone deep on left fronto parietal region of head
with chipping of underlying bone.
3. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext. 4) with an opinion that the death was caused due to above mentioned injuries caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon like 'farsa'. Time elapsed since death was found to be in between 6 to 24 hours.
Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of the witnesses.
4. On completion of the investigation, when the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial.
5. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined altogether 7 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 2-Giridhar Puran and P.W. 5-Chaitnya Puran-informant did testify that while they were in the house, they heard distress sound of their father coming from the backyard upon which when they went there, they found the appellant cutting the neck and head of their father. As soon as they reached at the place of occurrence, the appellant fled away from there. Meanwhile, P.W. 1-Rukmini Kumari-daughter of the deceased also reached and saw the appellant fleeing from there. P.W. 3-Subhash Adhikari and P.W.6- Mahavir Yadav are the witnesses to the inquest.
6. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied.
7. Thereupon the trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 and 5 did find the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge.
8. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the appellant is quite innocent and has been implicated falsely, as there had been an altercation with the deceased some days before the occurrence and when the deceased was done to death by some unknown person, the informant-Chaitnya Puran-P.W.5 taking advantage of it falsely implicated this appellant and that the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case, as it failed to produce the weapon used in the commission of the offence, which in course of investigation had been seized, and thereby the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial court is fit to be set aside.
9. As against this, Mr. Binod Singh, learned counsel for the State, submits that P.Ws. 2 and 5 are the eye witnesses who have categorically deposed that they saw the appellant giving blows by 'farsa' over the back portion of the head and neck of the deceased which find support from the medical evidence and thereby the prosecution can be said to have been able to prove the charge beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby the trial court was absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that the case of the prosecution, as has been testified by the informant-Chaitnya Puran-P.W.5 and also his brother Giridhar Puran-P.W.2, both sons of the deceased, is that while they were in the house, their father-Sukra Puran (deceased) had been fencing the piece of land over which he had planted tomato saplings some days before. They suddenly heard the distress sound of their father coming from the backyard upon which when they went, they found the appellant assaulting the deceased with 'farsa' over his neck and back portion of the head. As soon as they reached over there, this appellant fled from there. Meanwhile, P.W.1-Rukmini Kumari (daughter of the deceased) also reached there and saw this appellant fleeing away. Nothing seems to have been elicited in the cross-examination of those witnesses so as to have have even a slightest doubt over the truthfulness to their testimonies. Moreover, the testimonies of aforesaid two witnesses get corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor did find as many as seven injuries on the person of the deceased. Of them, two of the injuries, as has been mentioned above, are over the back portion of the head and also the neck and thereby the testimonies of the eye witnesses fully get corroboration from the medical evidence.
11. It be stated that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case but on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer no prejudice seems to have been caused to the appellant nor anything was shown on behalf of the defence that prejudice was caused on account of non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
12. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant.
13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed.
14. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed.
(R.R. Prasad, J.) (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 24th August, 2015 N.A.F.R. /AKT