Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

3. As per case of prosecution, on the fateful night of 4.6.2003 at about 4 a.m. at morning Chandraram (since deceased) was sleeping in his temporary hut (kundra) situate in front of his house which was under construction along with his son Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8), Kunjbihari (since deceased) his guest was also sleeping nearby son of Chandraram, Shyamratan (since deceased) was also sleeping on sand. Between 3.45 to 4 a.m., appellants Anjor Satnami and Batau Satnami came to temporary hut, they were holding stick and betel axe, they asked Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) about his father, at the same time Chandraram woke up, then they pushed Chandraram, Chandraram fell down on sand, thereafter simultaneously both the appellants assaulted him by betel axe and stick. Shyamratan woke up and tried to intervene and save his father, appellants also assaulted him by stick and betel axe. Third unfortunate deceased Kunjbihari also woke up, appellants also assaulted him. Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) immediately proceeded from the spot, appellants also assaulted Rajkumar by stick over his right hand. While he was running from the spot he fell down and also received injury on his left leg. He went to the house of 4th deceased Dhaniram, his uncle whom he told the incident, Dhaniram came to the spot i.e., near the house of Chandraram and started weeping near dead body of Chandraram i.e., his brother, at the same time accused Dhansu and Anil, appellants Anjor and Batau Satnami came from back and assaulted Dhaniram by stick and betel axe and killed him. After causing injury the appellants fled from the spot. In morning Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) saw dead body of guest Kunjbihari in ditch (diged for collecting waste material) (ghurwa). Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) informed his grandfather Guhan (PW-2) and Kotwar Prakash Das (PW-9) who went Police Station for lodging report and lodged Rojnamcha Sanha vide Ex.P/46A. Investigating officer N.P.Mishra (PW-14) left for scene of occurrence after recording Rojnamcha vide Ex.P/47A, he reached village Monhda, Police Station Hirri, seven kilometers away from the spot. Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) lodged dehati nalishi vide Ex.P/12A and dehati merg intimation vide Exs.P/13A, P/32, P/33 and P/34. Finally F.I.R. was lodged vide Ex.P/12 and merg intimation was recorded vide Exs.P/13, P/14, P/15 and P/16. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/17, inquest over dead bodies of deceased Shyamratan Kurre, Kunjbihari, Chandraram Kurre and Dhaniram were prepared vide Exs.P/18 to P/21. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Exs.P/29 and P/30. Injured Rajkumar was sent for medical examination vide Ex.P/5, he was examined by Dr.A.K.Sanyal (PW-4) vide Ex.P/5 and found following injuries:-

10. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and argued that in the present case Rajkumar Kurre (PW-

8) is relative witness and son of deceased Chandraram, but his evidence cannot be discarded on the ground of his relation. A close relation would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. Rajkumar Kurre (PW-

8) aged about 14 years is not only eyewitness but also injured witness; therefore, his presence cannot be doubtful, although this witness has not shouted for help. His age is only 14 years and he was shocked on account of murder of his four relatives. The appellants have not speared him, they have also assaulted him, he rushed from the spot, thereby he has been saved. He has not informed Kotwar or any other person that some unknown persons have committed the offence. Defence himself has asked Prakash Das (PW-9) in para 3 of his cross- examination that he was not informed by Rajkumar relating to incident. This shows that at that time of lodging of Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/46A, Prakash Das (PW-9) was not having knowledge that present appellants have committed the offence. After recording Rojnamcha Sanha investigating officer immediately proceeded for the spot, then Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) who has witnessed the incident and was also assaulted by the accused persons has lodged dehati nalishi and merg in which he has specifically informed and described the names of assailants and weapons which they were holding and injuries caused by them to four persons. Betel axe, axe and stick have been recovered from the appellants and presence of blood has been confirmed on the aforesaid articles, although prosecution has not proved presence of human blood, that too blood group of the deceased but in the light of evidence of Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) and Panchu (PW-1) same is not fatal to prosecution. After appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.

20. Panchu (PW-1) is also child witness and competent witness. Before examining such child witness, the Court is required to satisfy itself that whether such witness is understand to speak truth and is able to answer the questions rationally. Before examining this witness by putting questions, the Court has satisfied itself that Panchu (PW-1) is able to answer the questions.

21. Definitely in the present case, Kotwar Prakash Das (PW-9) has lodged Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/46(A) in which it has been mentioned that unknown persons have committed murder of four persons. Defence has cross-examined Kotwar Prakash Das (PW-9) who has lodged Rojnamcha Sanha and specifically suggested him in para 3 of his cross-examination that he was informed by Sukhsagar and Rajkumar has not informed the incident to this witness. Sukhsagar has not seen the incident. Rajkumar has deposed that he has seen the incident. Incident took place at about 4 a.m. As per suggestion given by defence to prosecution witness at about 5 a.m. persons used to field for ease. This shows that at about 4 to 4.30 a.m. place of incident was lonely and no other persons were passing or moving near the place of incident. After incident when villagers came to know then Kotwar Prakash Das (PW-9) went to the Police Station and lodged Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/46(A), at that time he was not informed the incident by Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8).

25. Guhan (PW-2) who has accompanied Kotwar Prakash Das (PW-

9) has deposed in his evidence that between 5 to 6 a.m. Rajkumar Kurre (PW-8) knocked his door and informed him that the appellants have killed his uncle Dhaniram, father Chandraram, brother Shyamratan and one relative of village Mohanbhatta, then he visited the place of incident and saw dead bodies. In para 5 of his cross-examination he has specifically admitted the suggestion given by the defence that he has not told the names of assailants at Police Station but he has denied the suggestion that Rajkumar has not informed the names of assailants, therefore, he has not informed the police. He has admitted in para 8 that 100 persons gathered on the spot between 5 to 6 a.m. In para 10 he has further admitted that after informing the police by telephone they immediately proceeded for Police Station by motor-cycle. His detailed evidence especially para 5 of cross-examination reveals that although he was informed by Rajkumar relating to incident and assailants but he has not informed the police and virtually one constable was controlling the movement of Police and Police immediately went to the spot by four vehicles, although it was his duty to inform the names of assailants to the Police, but he has not informed the names of assailants to Police, even he has not lodged any Rojnamcha Sanha or report and Rojnamcha was lodged by Prakash Das (PW-9). In these circumstances, non-recording of names of assailants in Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P/46(A) is not fatal to prosecution.