Pradeep Kharia vs State Of Jharkhand

This appeal is directed as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed under Section 302/34 of the IPC.

It is submitted by the learned A.P.P. that appellant no.3- David Kharia (Kiro) has died during pendency of appeal and the report regarding this, has been received from the concerned police station vide letter no. 669/22 dated 02.05.2022. The appeal of David Kharia (Kiro) accordingly, stands abated.

Informant- Anita Kiro is the sister-in-law of the deceased. As per the fardbeyan, on 11.08.2008, she was engaged in paddy transplantation in the agricultural field, whereas her sister-in-law Veronica Kiro (deceased) and children were at home. At around 5 O’ clock in the afternoon, she heard the cries for help of the deceased at which when she rushed to her home, she saw Pradeep Kharia, Samula Kiro, David Kiro and Amar Kiro armed with lathi, were chasing the deceased. She was surrounded in the field of Ajit Soren and conjointly assaulted by the accused persons. Pradeep Kharia brought spade from his house and inflicted sharp cut injury over her face, neck and hand. As a result, she died on spot.

On the basis of the fardbeyan, Palkot P.S. Case No.55/2008 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC against the appellants and two others.

Police on investigation, found the case true and submitted charge sheet against five accused persons. Four of them were put on trial and the trial of one of the accused was separated and was sent for enquiry before the Juvenile Justice Board. One of the accused died during the trial and the learned trial Court returned judgment of conviction and sentence against three of the appellants.

Altogether 13 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and the relevant documents including FIR, post-mortem examination report, confessional statements of the accused persons leading to recovery, have been proved and marked as Exhibit 1 – 10.

Judgment of conviction and sentence has been assailed on the ground that presence of the informant (P.W. 9) at the place of occurrence, is in doubt. P.W. 10, who has claimed herself to be an eyewitness, has deposed that she has closed the door on hulla and had not seen the occurrence.

Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. It is submitted that the FIR was lodged without any delay and the testimony of the informant is fully corroborated by the fardbeyan which was recorded after the incidence.

Homicidal death of the deceased, has not been disputed and has been fully established by the post-mortem examination report (Exhibit 10) which notes more than six ante-mortem injuries over the dead body. Doctor (P.W. 12) found following ante-mortem injuries: -

I. (a) A lacerated injury 5 cm x 1.5 cm extending from left eye medially to left nostril. (b) Left eyeball ruptured with depressed fracture of left frontal bone and left maxillary bone damaging brain matter.

II. Lacerated cut injury 4 cm x 1 cm from medial eyebrow below nasal bridge with fracture of nasal bone.

III. Sharp cut injury 4 cm x 0.5 cm muscle deep in left fronto parietal region.

IV. Sharp cut injury 10 cm x 4 cm x 5 cm deep cutting trachea, oesophagus and cervical vertebrae C2 and C3.

V. Sharp cut injury 5 cm x 3 cm x 1 cm deep on left lower forearm dorsally.

VI. Sharp cut injury 5 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm deep with compound fracture left lower radius.

All injuries were ante-mortem in nature. Injury Nos. 1 and 2 were grievous in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Injury Nos. 3 and 5 were simple in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon. Injury Nos. 4 and 6 were grievous in nature caused by sharp cutting weapon.

Doctor opined that injuries nos. 1 – 4 were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature.

Informant (P.W. 9) has deposed that the incidence took place on 08.08.2011 in the evening at 4 – 5 O’clock, when she was engaged in transplantation of paddy. She heard the cries of the deceased and she went there, she saw the appellants and other co-accused persons armed with lathi were assaulting her. On the command of Hondrik Kiro, Pradeep brought a spade and inflicted sharp cut injury over her cheek, neck and hand. It has come in her cross-examination there was land dispute between both sides. At para 10, she has stated that the place of occurrence was at a distance of 50 yards from the place where she was doing the agricultural work. She has reiterated in her cross- examination that she has heard the cries of help of the deceased.

Defence has absolutely failed to demolish the testimonies of the witnesses. Her testimony is further corroborated by that of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 7. Further, P.W. 10 is a child witness aged 10 years and the daughter of the informant, who has fully corroborated the testimony. Hence, the ocular evidence of the witnesses is corroborated by the medical evidence of the Doctor.

In view of the direct eye witness account of these witnesses, who were natural eye witness to the incidence which took place in the village near the house of the deceased, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of these witnesses.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of the judgment and conviction passed by the learned trial Court.

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.

Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, is disposed of.

Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with a copy of this judgment.