Ghasiram Kaibarto vs State of Jharkhand

Sole appellant Ghasiram Kaibarto stands convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to serve rigorous

imprisonment for life, by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 123 of 1995.

Brief facts leading to this appeal are that the appellant was married with one Artibala Kibarto, daughter of deceased Nakur Kaibarto and sister

of deceased Konda Kaibarto. The appellant, later on, married with another lady and deserted PW 5 Artibala Kaibarto, for which a case was

instituted upon him. The matter was finally settled between them, after the appellant and his father registered one and half bighas of land in her

favour. On the date of occurrence, 29.5.1994, the deceased persons had gone to plough the said land at about 7.00 a.m. The informant, Shiv

Kaibarto (PW 4) and cousin brother of PW 5, learnt at about 8.00 a.m. that both of them were killed by the appellant with sword and arrows.

The informant rushed to the place of occurrence to find both the deceased lying with injuries on their body and the appellant fleeing away with the

sword. The reason behind this occurrence was that the appellant wanted to grab the land registered in favour of PW 5 forcibly and did not like the

land to be ploughed by the deceased persons.

The statement of the informant was recorded by Potka Police at the place of occurrence i.e. Plot No. 142 situated in Ambera Sati, Mouza-

Kailkapur at about 12.45 hours on same day, on the basis of which, Potka Police Station Case No. 29 of 1994 u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code

was registered against the appellant. The appellant also surrendered before the police along with sword afterwards. The police started investigation

of the case, seized arrows and bow from the place of occurrence as well as bloodstained soil in presence of witnesses, PW 1, PW 2, PW 3 and

PW 6. The police sent the dead bodies after preparing the inquest report for postmortem examination and finally submitted charge-sheet against

the appellant. The case of the appellant was committed to the Court of Sessions wherein the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur framed

charge u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The trial Court after examining the

witnesses found and held the appellant guilty for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to serve rigorous imprisonment

for life.

This appeal has been preferred at the instance of the appellant on the grounds that the appellant has been found and held guilty on

uncorroborated evidence of PW 1. It is also asserted that in admitted facts of enmity and land disputes between the parties, the trial Court should

have given the benefit of doubt to the appellant. It is also asserted that non-examination of the investigating officer, particularly, in view of the

contradictions in the evidence of PW 4, benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant, who has already remained in custody for last twelve

years.

We have anxiously considered these points along with the materials on record. The prosecution having examined nine witnesses has brought on

record that the appellant has deserted PW 5 for which settlement was arrived at between them after providing one and half bighas of land to PW 5

through registered deed. It is also apparent from the records that on 29.5.1994, the father and brother of PW 5 had gone to plough the same land;

the appellant naturally feeling aggrieved did not like his field to be ploughed by the in-laws. It is also apparent from the records that the informant

later on claimed to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence, but according to the fardbeyan that he went at the place of occurrence to see the

deceased persons lying on the ground and the appellant fleeing away with sword. The dead bodies were recovered from the field situated in

Ambera Sati, Mauza - Kalikapur in the noon along with bow and arrows. The witnesses examined as PW 1, PW 2 and PW 6 though not eye-

witnesses of the occurrence have categorically supported the prosecution case regarding the seizure of the blood-stained soil as well as bow and

arrows in their presence by the police. The dead bodies were also found lying in the field and inquest report was prepared in presence of Court

witnesses, Nandi Murku, Shikhar Mardi and Ranjit Sah, who proved the signatures and L.T.I. on the inquest report marked Ext. 6 and their

signatures are on it as Ext. 1/3 and 1/4. PW 3 Basudeo Kaibarto has supported the prosecution story by asserting that the appellant has handed

over the iron sword in his presence to police which was bloodstained vide Ext. 1 /1. He has specifically mentioned in cross- examination that the

appellant has arrived at the police station one hour before them. Therefore, it appears that the appellant himself surrendered before the police along

with the weapon he used to commit the offence.

PW 2. Parvati, wife and mother of the deceased, along with PW 5 and PW 7 are admittedly not eye-witnesses of the occurrence. However,

when PW 2 arrived at the field, she found her husband and son lying dead. These witnesses truthfully accepted that they had not seen the

occurrence, but named the appellant as the assailant. PW 7 is a blind person, who naturally could not have seen any occurrence. PW 4, the

informant improved his earlier version by asserting that at the time of occurrence, he was levelling the side field. However, he admitted in cross-

examination vide para 5 that many persons were ploughing their fields nearby, who fled away seeing the occurrence. He further admitted in para 6

that half an hour, when he reached at the place of occurrence, he saw the appellant fleeing away and the deceased lying injured in the field. There is

nothing on record to show that these witnesses have implicated the appellant falsely. PW 8 is the doctor, who conducted the post-mortem

examination on the dead bodies and found ten incised injuries on the dead body of Nakul Kaibarto and further twelve incised wounds on the dead

body of Konda Kaibarto. He further took out the arrows from the chest cavity of deceased Nakul Kaibarto. PW 9 has proved formally the

fardbeyan and first information report recorded by Shri R.R. Prasad. O/C Potka Police Station on 29.5.1994. The learned trial Court has

considered all these facts and circumstances vide paragraph Nos. 11, 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment.

Having considering the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the appellant, who has got a grudge against the

deceased persons regarding, ploughing the land previously belonging to him has culminated in this occurrence. The circumstances discussed above

establish beyond doubts that the appellant has committed the offence causing death of two persons in broad daylight in the manner alleged using

sword and arrows. In such circumstances, we find and hold that the conviction of appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the trial Court

does not require any interference.

In the result, we find no merit in the present appeal. The conviction of the appellant and sentence passed against him are hereby confirmed. In

this manner, this appeal is dismissed.