Jharkhand High Court
Ram Mahato @ Ram Prasad @ Ram Prasad ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007 (2) AIR JHAR R 221, (2007) 1 JLJR 597
Author: D.G.R. Patnaik
Bench: D.G.R. Patnaik, R.R. Prasad
JUDGMENT D.G.R. Patnaik, J.
1. The sole appellant Ram Mahato @ Ram Prasad @ Ram Prasad Mahato was charged with, tried and convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as also for the offence under Section 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code by the learned trial court and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and 10 years for the offence under Section 376(G) of the Indian Penal Code. The present appellant assailed the aforesaid judgment of conviction and sentence.
2. Brief facts of the case, as unfolded by the informant (PW10) vide her fardbeyan (F.I.R.) dated 1.10.1998, is that on the night between 30.9.1908/ l.l0.1998 while the informant along with her husband Ravi Pradhan (deceased) was sleeping in her house situated within the premises of the soap factory, they were attacked by miscreants who came into the courtyard of the house by scaling the boundary wall. In their attempt to forcibly open the door, they had broken the window's glass pane, through which they shot at and injured the informant's husband and compelled the informant to open the door. After ransacking the house, they abducted the informant from the house and took her towards the nearby railway line at a distance of about 500 meters where they committed gang rape on her. Before carrying away the informant, they had bolted the door of the adjacent room of her father-in-law from outside. The informant on being released by the assailants returned home and opened the door of the room of her father-in-law and narrated the incident to him. She found that her husband had died on account of bullet injury. On information, the police arrived and recorded the fardbeyan (F.I.R.), on the basis of which, the case was registered against the present appellant and others. The informant had identified and named the present appellant in her fardbeyan.
3. At the trial, altogether 12 witnesses, were examined including the informant (PW10), her father (PW7), the doctor. (PW12) who had medically examined the informant as well as the doctor (PW1) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, husband of the informant and the investigating officer (PW8).
4. The trial court on considering the evidence on record, had placed reliance upon the testimony of the informant and finding support thereto from the testimony of her father (PW7) and also from the medical evidence besides the evidence of the investigating officer. (PW8), had recorded its finding of guilt for both the aforementioned offences against the appellant and sentenced him accordingly.
5. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment of conviction primarily on the ground that he was arrested due to mistaken identity and he is not the person referred to by the informant in her fardbeyan. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant explains that though the informant has referred to the name of one Ram Prasad residents of Gwala Basti without mentioning his parentage, but the aforesaid description does not correspond to the name and identity of the present appellant who bears the name Ram Mahto @ Ram Prasad Mahto and he is a resident of village Sindopath Amla Tola and not a resident of Gwala Basti. Learned Counsel refers in this context to the evidence of the informant (PW10) wherein she has acknowledged that she has never known any of the accused persons including the present appellant prior to the date of occurrence and though she claims that she had identified the appellant in the T.I. Parade, but no such T.I. P. chart has been adduced in evidence, nor was any evidence brought on record in respect of the holding of the T.I. Parade. Referring to the other grounds, learned Counsel submits that the entire case rests on the testimony of the informant (PW10) who has claimed to have seen and identified the present appellant at the time of occurrence and has accused the appellant of having committed murder of her husband as also of having committed rape on her, but evidence on the point of identification of the appellant cannot be believed in the light of the evidence of PW4 and PW5 and also of PW8 and PW9. Learned Counsel explains that the aforesaid witnesses claim to have arrived at the house of the informant almost soon after the occurrence, but they have categorically stated that the informant had not referred to the name of any of the accused persons therefore, such omission on her part to state the name of the assailant at the earliest point of time, leads to genuine doubt on the veracity of her testimony. Learned Counsel refers further to the delay of two days in forwarding the F.I.R. to the court and claims that the delay assumes significance and gives reason to believe that the insertion of the appellant's name in the fardbeyan was an alter thought.
6. Learned Counsel for the State, while defending the impugned judgment and controverting the defence of the appellant, submits that the dispute regarding the identity of the appellant is misconceived and as a matter of fact, the identity of the present appellant as one of the perpetrators of the crime, has been firmly established by the identification of the appellant by the informant in the dock in course of trial. As regards the statements of PW4 and PW5, who claim that the informant has not divulged the name of any assailant before them, learned Counsel submits that these witnesses who happen to be the residents of adjoining locality, have failed to support the prosecution' case, although in their respective statements before the investigating officer, they had stated that the informant had revealed the name of one of the assailants before them as Ram Prasad and consequently, both these witnesses were declared hostile by the prosecution. Learned Counsel refers to the statement of PW7 who has supported the evidence of the prosecutrix in respect of the name and identity of one of the assailants.
7. As mentioned herein-above, the case involves two different offences, one relating to the homicidal death of the husband of the informant and other relating to the gang rape committed on the informant. From perusal of the evidence on record, I find that the defence has not disputed the fact of murder of the husband of the informant or even the fact concerning the gang rape committed on the informant. The evidence of the investigating officer (PW11) and the inquest report prepared by him in respect of the dead body of the deceased namely, Ravi Pradhan and also going through the evidence of the doctor (PW1) who had conducted the postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, there appears consistent evidence which confirms that the deceased Ravi Pradhan, husband of the informant, had suffered ante mortem gun shot injury on the left side of the chest about 14 cm below the clavicle and 3 cm left lateral to midline of the chest having a diameter of 1/2 cm lateral adjoining skin was found burnt and blackened with levelling of left margin of wound. There was burning and blacking of skin over 2.5 cm and powder tatooing over antro-lateral aspect of chest and abdominal wall over an area of 4 cm vertically & 17 cm horizontally. The projectile after entering through the 6th inter costal space, punctured the anterior wall of ventricle rebounded back through the same hole, traversed through the middle line of right lung and came out through a wound of exit placed over lateral aspect of chest wall 10 cm, below the post auxiliary fold having a diameter of 1/2 cm. There was blacking and burning of supra-medial margin of wound over an area of 2 cm. The same projectile entered the right arm through a second wound of over medial aspect, placed 12 cm below the mid axilla having a diameter of 1/2 cm. There were two burn and blackening marks dispersed supro-laterally measuring 3 cm each. Intervening healthy linear skin. Projectile traversed through the soft tissue plane vertically downward and was recovered after incising the skin 8 cm below the wound of entrance. Projectile was preserved in sealed envelope. The doctor has opined that the death was on account of gun shot injury caused by firearm.
8. The investigating officer (PW11) has stated that after recording the fardbeyan of the informant (PW10), he had forwarded her for her medical examination and she was medically examined by the doctor (PW12) on the date of occurrence itself at about 2.00 PM. The doctor had found definite marks of violence in and around the victim's private part and presence of some white fluid in the vagina. The doctor has confirmed that the victim was subjected to recent sexual intercourse by more than 2 persons. She had also found marks of violence on various parts of victim's body.
9. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the incident had occurred when the informant was alone inside her room with her husband. In her deposition, she has reiterated the same statements as originally made by her in her fardbeyan. She has stated categorically that in the hours of midnight when she woke up on hearing the sound of gun shot and knock at her door, she saw that the miscreants had broken the window glass pane and through the window, she saw one of the miscreants whom she had seen and identified as Ram Prasad, who shot at her husband when he was trying to conceal himself by the side of the wall within the room. She has further affirmed that the miscreants threatened to shoot her down also and compelled her to open the door whereafter, they entered into her room and ransacked the house and took out a sum of Rs. 1,360/- which was kept in a box and thereafter, before leaving the house, miscreants had bolted the door of the adjacent room occupied by the uncle of her deceased husband and thereafter they had also molested her. It appears from her deposition that initially, she was hesitant to spell out the fact of her being subjected to rape, but later she acknowledges that in her statement to the police she had stated that the miscreants had dragged her away from her house to a distance near the railway line where all the miscreants, 5 in number, committed rape on her and the first person who had ravished her was Ram Prasad. She also affirms that she was medically examined by the lady doctor on the date of occurrence itself. This witness was subjected to grueling cross-examination on the point of her identification of the appellant Ram Prasad. Though she admits that none of the miscreants were known to her prior to the date of occurrence, but she has categorically identified the present appellant in dock claiming him to be the person whom she has named in the F.I.R. as also in her deposition.
PW7, Who is the father of the informant, though deposed on the basis of what he had heard from his daughter (PW10) on his arrival at the house of his daughter soon after the occurrence, has categorically stated that his daughter (PW10) had revealed to him about the name of one of the miscreants as Ram Prasad. The evidence of PW12 and the corresponding medical report in respect of the medical examination of the victim lady and the evidence of PW1 and the postmortem report relating to the postmortem examination of the deceased husband of the informant, lends adequate corroboration to the testimony of PW10 not only in respect of the murder of the deceased, but also in respect of gang rape committed on the victim lady. Her testimony in respect of the identity of the present appellant as one of the miscreants whom she had seen in the lighting of the electric bulb and identified him, is confirmed by her identification of the appellant in the dock in course of trial and also by the statement of PW7 who has confirmed that the lady had revealed the name of one of the miscreants as Ram Prasad soon after the occurrence. This leaves no scope for any controversy regarding the identity of the appellant as one of the perpetrators of crime. Though PW8, who happens to be the uncle of the deceased and occupier of the room adjacent to the room of the informant, has been declared hostile, yet he has also affirmed about the occurrence stating that the miscreants had entered into the room of his nephew (deceased) and shot him dead and thereafter dragged away the wife of the deceased from the house.
10. The investigating officer (PW11) was also subjected to extensive cross-examination particularly on the point of identity of the present appellant and he has explained that it was on the basis of confidential information received from the police informer that he had ascertained the name and identity of the present appellant who had surrendered himself before the trial court and thereafter, he had tallied the name and description given by the informant and after conducting the investigation and finding sufficient evidence against the present appellant, he had submitted charge sheet recommending trial of the appellant for the offences aforesaid. He has described the place of occurrence as being the room of the informant within the premises of the soap factory. He has stated that that he found definite marks of violence inside the room where he found the dead body of the deceased lying on the ground and had also found broken pieces of bangles. He had also examined the second place of occurrence situated at a distance of about 500 meter from the house of the informant, though he did not find any such material worth recording at the time of his inspection of the place.
As regards the Suspicion raised by the appellant regarding the delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the court, it appears from the evidence of the investigating officer (PW11) that the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded by the officer-in-charge of the police station in the early hours of the morning of 1.10.1998 and he had received the fardbeyan on the same day while taking up the charge of the investigation and had registered the instant case on the basis of the fardbeyan immediately thereafter. It is apparent that there is no delay either in recording the fardbeyan of the informant or in registering the case on the basis of the fardbeyan. Even if, there was some delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the court, this in itself does not lead to any ground for suspecting the genuineness of the fardbeyan of the informant. It is significant to note that while subjecting the investigating officer to lengthy cross-examination, no explanation has been elicited from him by the defence regarding the purported delay in forwarding the F.I.R. to the court. The ground of delay is, therefore, not of any serious consequence to the prosecution.
12. Learned trial court has considered the evidences on record in proper perspective and has assigned adequate reasons for arriving at the finding of guilt against the present appellant. We find no infirmity or illegality in the findings of the court below. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence, as imposed by the trial court against the appellant, is hereby confirmed.
R.R. Prasad, J.
13. I agree.