Jagdish Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand

Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J. :

Heard Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.P.P.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12-04-2018 passed by Sri Rajeev Anand, learned Additional Judicial Commissioner-XIII, Ranchi, in connection with S.T. Case No. 520/2016, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months.

The prosecution case arises out of a written report of Sulochana Devi in which it has been stated that she works in a school and on 08-05-2016 at 07:30AM, the informant had gone to the school when some persons came and informed her that her husband has been murdered by Jagdish Singh (appellant). At this information, the informant had reached her house at 11:30AM and she came to know that the murder of her husband was done in the house of Binod Bhokta and the dead body was also lying there. Some persons had brought the dead body of the husband of the informant to her house and had kept it in the courtyard. The villagers had disclosed that since morning, a quarrel was going on between the husband of the informant and Jagdish Singh with respect to some monetary transaction and this ultimately resulted in the assault with a tangi by Jagdish Singh upon the husband of the informant leading to his death.

Based on the aforesaid allegations, Sadar (Khelgaon) P.S. Case No. 183/2016 was instituted under Section 302 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. 520/2016. Charge was framed against the accused under Section 302 IPC which was read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

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

P.W.1 Sulochana Devi is the informant who has stated that on 08-05-2016 at 07:30AM, she had gone to her school and at around 10:00-11:00AM, the villagers had informed her that her husband has been murdered. When she went, she found a crowd had gathered in front of her house and the dead body of her husband was lying in front of the house of Binod Bhokta. The news spread through the entire village that Jagdish Singh had committed the murder of her husband with a tangi. She had seen Jagdish Singh sitting with a tangi in front of his house. The Police had come and seized the tangi and blood-stained shirt from Jagdish Singh. Jagdish Singh had disclosed to the Police that her husband had taken Rs. 600/- from him and this was the reason he was murdered.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had not witnessed the incident and she had come to know about the occurrence from the villagers.

P.W.2 Priti Devi has stated that the incident is of 08-05-2016 at 10:00-11:00AM when she had seen Jagdish Singh assaulting Baijnath Singh with a kulhari and she out of fear had returned back to her house. After the murder, four persons had brought the dead body from the house of Binod Bhokta and kept it in the house of the deceased. She has proved her signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that it takes three minutes to travel from her house to the place of occurrence. There are 4-5 houses in between her house and the place of occurrence. She had seen Jagdish Singh committing assault upon Baijnath Singh. On seeing the assault, she had come back home crying. On the date of occurrence, her husband, younger brother, sister and grandmother were present in the house.

P.W.3 Mathura Singh has stated that the incident is of 08-05-2016 at 10:00-11:00AM and he was in his new house at that point of time. The murder was committed in front of the gate of Binod Bhokta after which the son and nephew of Jagdish had brought the dead body and kept it in his house. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence and it was the villagers who had disclosed to him about the same.

P.W.4 Dr. Jyotish Guria was posted as a Junior Resident, Department of FMT, RIMS, Ranchi and on 08-05-2016, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Baijnath Singh and had found the following:

The incised wounds were anti-mortem in nature caused by heavy sharp cutting weapon. The cause of death was opined to be on account of the injuries mentioned above. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-2.

P.W.5 Jitendra Bhokta has stated that he came to know from the villagers that Jagdish Singh had committed the murder of Baijnath Singh with a tangi. He has proved his signature on the seizure list which has been marked as Exhibit-3.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not seen the occurrence.

P.W.6 Binod Bhokta alias Birendra has stated that he had heard that Jagdish Singh had committed the murder of Baijnath Singh with a tangi.

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

P.W.7 Shyam Sunder Singh did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

P.W.8 Juvencius Dungdung was posted as a Sub-Inspector of Police in Khelgaon P.S. and on 08-05-2016, he was entrusted with the investigation of the case. He has proved the endorsement on the written report which has been marked as Exhibit- 4. The forwarding on the written report has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 4/1. The formal FIR has been marked as Exhibit- 5. The confessional statement of Jagdish Singh has been proved and marked as Exhibit- 6. He has also proved the seizure lists which have been marked as Exhibit- 7 and 7/1. He had recorded the restatement of Sulochana Devi as well as the statement of Shyam Sunder Singh, Mathura Singh, Priti Devi and Jitendra Bhokta. He had inspected the place of occurrence which is at village Gadi under Khelgaon P.S. He had recorded the statement of Binod Bhokta and had also obtained the post-mortem report of Baijnath Singh. He had submitted charge sheet against Jagdish Singh. He has proved the inquest report which has been marked as Exhibit- 8. He has produced the iron kulhari recovered from the house of Jagdish Singh and a blood-stained shirt in court which have been marked as Material Exhibit M-I and M-II. The envelope which has notings SFSL No. 697/16 Exhibit Mark No. “C” has been marked as Material Exhibit M-III.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that in course of investigation he had recorded the statement of Shyam Sunder Singh who was an eyewitness to the occurrence. There were blood-stains on the shirt of Jagdish Singh from which it could be deduced that he had committed the murder.

The statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he has denied his complicity in the murder.

It has been submitted by Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the appellant that there are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses. The place of occurrence has not been established as different witnesses have described different places of occurrence. It has been submitted that the narration in the First Information Report does not match with the findings in the post-mortem report. Even the timing of death appears to indicate that the death had occurred much earlier than what has been projected by the prosecution.

Learned A.P.P. has submitted that P.W.2 is an eyewitness to the occurrence and the manner of assault as depicted by her corroborates the nature of injuries found on the body of the deceased as per the autopsy report. It has been submitted that the weapon of assault was recovered from the house of the appellant and his blood-stained shirt was also recovered.

We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides and have also perused the trial court records.

The informant (P.W.1) is not an eyewitness to the occurrence and she had come to know about the incident when she was at school and the villagers had informed her that her husband has been murdered by the appellant. P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased who is the only eyewitness to the occurrence and who has stated that on seeing the assault, she out of fear had gone back to her house. She has supported the said fact even in her cross-examination. The defence has failed to demolish the status of P.W.2 as an eyewitness. P.W.2 has also stated that at the time of the incident her husband Shyam Sunder Singh was in the house and even P.W.8 (I.O.) had stated that Shyam Sunder Singh is an eyewitness, but for whatever reasons the said witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Though P.W.2 is the solitary eyewitness but her evidence has been corroborated by other material facts which adorn primacy and which includes the seizure of a kulhari from the house of the appellant and the blood-stained shirt of the appellant. The kulhari, shirt and blood-stained earth were sent to FSL for forensic examination and in all the seized materials, blood of human source of origin of blood group B was found. The defence has failed to highlight any other explanation with respect to the recovery and the analysis in the FSL report. The post-mortem report also corroborates the manner of assault as depicted by P.W.2 as several incised wounds were found on the person of the deceased which can be attributed to a kulhari.

The aforesaid features of the case prove beyond any reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the murder of Bajnath Singh and the learned trial court, on correct appreciation of the materials available on record, had convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. There being no reasons to arrive at a different conclusion, we consequently, dismiss this appeal.

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