Chokro Pradhan & Anr. vs The State Of Jharkhand

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

Heard Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Spl. P.P.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 28-08-2018 (sentence passed on 30-08-2018 passed by Sri Dinesh Rai, learned Additional Sessions Judge- II, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in S.T. No. 127/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC and have been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.

The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Jambira Pradhan recorded on 22-02-2016, in which it has been stated that the informant are three brothers and while the elder brother, Manjhi Pradhan stays at a distance of 1 km from the house of the informant by constructing his own house, the informant, his other brother, Chokro Pradhan and his wife, Somwari Pradhan and the parents of the informant stay in the same house though in different rooms. It has been alleged that Chokro Pradhan and his wife used to pressurize the informant and his parents to vacate the house and also used to abuse them. On 21-02-2016, at about 09:00PM Chokro Pradhan involved himself in a quarrel for vacating the house and when the mother of the informant refused to vacate, Somwari Pradhan came and started assaulting the mother of the informant with fists and slaps and when the father of the informant intervened, Chokro Pradhan tried to assault him but he out of fear fled away. It has been alleged that thereafter, Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan started committing assault upon the mother of the informant and the informant out of fear also fled away. When the informant and his father returned home in the morning, they found the dead body of the mother of the informant lying in the field.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Tonto P.S. Case No. 04/2016 was instituted under Section 302/34 IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as S.T. No. 127/2016. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302/34 and 201/34 IPC which was read over and explained to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case:

P.W.1 Jambira Pradhan is the informant who has stated that his mother was assaulted with sticks by Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan which led to her death. When he had tried to save his mother, the accused persons had chased him off. Both the accused were jealous of him and his mother. His fardbeyan was recorded by the Police in presence of the Gramin Munda.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that it was 08:00PM and he was having his meals and when he went to the place of occurrence to save his mother, he had seen Chokro assaulting his mother with a firewood. He had fled away from the place of occurrence and in the morning, when he returned back, he had seen the dead body of his mother lying beneath a mango tree.

P.W.2 Virsingh Sundi has stated that he was informed by Jambira Pradhan that his mother has been murdered. At this information, he had gone to the house of Jambira Pradhan and found his mother lying dead. He was told by Jambira Pradhan and the villagers that due to a quarrel, Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan had committed the murder. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1. He has also proved his signature on the arrest memo of Chokro Pradhan which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident.

P.W.3 Sidiyu Pradhan is the father of the informant who has stated that the Gramin Munda had given two goats and a bullock and out of jealousy, the accused persons had committed the murder of his wife. Both had committed assault upon his wife with dandas. When the assault was being committed, he had fled away as he would also have been murdered if he stayed back.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his house and the house of Chokro Pradhan face each other. The relationship between his son and the accused was not cordial from before the incident itself. He has a poor eyesight due to old age.

P.W.4 Kaira Tanti has stated that Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan used to regularly quarrel with Mani Pradhan. On the next day of the occurrence, he came to know that both have murdered Mani Pradhan and had thrown the dead body in the field of Nitu Sirka.

In cross-examination, he has admitted that he had not witnessed the occurrence.

P.W.5 Harish Sirka has stated that he had come to know that Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan had committed the murder of Mani Pradhan. Since the time Chokro Pradhan and Somwari Pradhan had left the house of Mani Pradhan, they used to regularly quarrel with her.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not witnessed the incident.

P.W.6 Bam Shankar Yadav was posted as an Officer-in-Charge of Tonto P.S. and on 22-02-2016, he had heard a rumor about the murder of a woman at Partal village and after making a station diary entry, he had left for the said place. He had recorded the fardbeyan of Jambari Pradhan at the place of occurrence in the presence of the village Munda. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1/1. He had prepared the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit-3. The registration on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Exhibit-1/2. He had taken over the investigation at the place of occurrence itself. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Pertal in the field of Nitu Sirka. He had recorded the restatement of the informant and the statements of other witnesses. He has proved the formal FIR which has been marked as Exhibit-4. He had sent the body for post-mortem examination and on receipt of the same and on completion of investigation, he had submitted charge sheet.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seized any lathi from the place of occurrence. He had also not seized any blood-stained earth or cloths from the place of occurrence.

P.W.7 Dr. Mathura Mahto was posted as a Medical Officer at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa and on 22-02-2016, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mani Pradhan and had found the following:

The cause of death was opined to be due to severe chest injury, severe abdominal injury, hemorrhage and shock. The post-mortem report has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5.

The statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they have denied their complicity in the murder.

It has been submitted by Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, learned counsel for the appellants that the death was not intended by the appellants and the case would fall under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The nature of weapons used would also be suggestive of the said fact. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly reveals an inconsistency as though in his fardbeyan P.W.1 has stated about the appellant no. 2 committing assault upon the deceased with kicks and fists, but in course of trial he has stated about seeing the appellant no. 1 committing the assault with a firearm. There is an ambiguity with respect to motive as different reasons have been given for commission of the murder by P.W.1 and P.W.3. The place of occurrence has also not been proved by the prosecution.

Learned Special P.P. has submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.3 have stated about witnessing the commission of assault by the appellants upon the deceased Mani Pradhan. The deceased was brutally assaulted by the appellants which can be fathomed from the post-mortem report. The learned trial court has correctly appreciated the facts while convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC.

We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the trial court records.

The appellants have been accused of committing the murder of Mani Pradhan, the mother of appellant no. 1 with firewood/lathi. The incident had occurred inside the house of P.W.1. Different motives have been highlighted by P.W.1 and P.W.3 which resulted in the murder. P.W.1 has stated that the appellants were jealous of him and his mother (deceased) which has further been elaborated by P.W.3 as the reason for jealousy was the giving of two goats and a bullock by the village Munda. In the fardbeyan, however, the reason has been assigned to be of the pressure created by the appellants upon the informant and the deceased to vacate the house which had been objected to by the deceased which ultimately resulted in the assault which turned fatal. However, the motive as stated by the defence would hardly be of any consequence if the eyewitness account of P.W.1 and P.W.3 are credible. P.W.1 has stated about witnessing the assault committed by the appellants upon his mother and there was no occasion for him to save his mother as he was also under the threat of assault and out of fear he had fled away. P.W.3 had also seen the initial assault and he also fled away on apprehending that he would be murdered had he stayed. The post-mortem report indicates the brutality of the assault committed upon the deceased as severe injuries were found on the chest and abdomen of the deceased. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 are natural, consistent and devoid of any exaggeration and, therefore, no iota of doubt is created over their testimony.

So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants regarding no intention of the appellants of committing the murder is concerned, it clearly transpires that it was not on account of a one-off quarrel, but was the culmination of a continuous bad blood existing between the appellants and the deceased. This fact has also been highlighted by the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5. The assault was not related to a single blow with a firewood, but a concerted and indiscriminate assault with a common intention resulting in multiple rib fractures as well and the entire circumstances of the case would, therefore, reveal that it was a premeditated act on the part of the appellants and consequently, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that at best an offence under Section 304 IPC is made out is negated.

Thus, on a consideration of the evidence on record as noted above, we come to the conclusion that the learned trial court had rightly convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 302/IPC and having found no reasons to conclude otherwise, this appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.

Pending I.A.(s), if any, stands closed.