RAMJEE SAH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred by this appellant, who is original accused No. 4 in the Sessions Case, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 31st January, 2005 delivered by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 2, Godda in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003 whereby this appellant has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -, and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This appellant has also been convicted under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment. This appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. However, the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently and rest of the accused i.e. accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3, have been acquitted. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred. It is the case of the prosecution that PW.8 informed the police on 13th February, 2003 at 8.00 p.m. at Boarijor Police Station, District Godda, that on previous day i.e. on 12th February, 2003 at about 6.00 o'clock, when she and her husband (deceased Amik Yadav) were returning from Godda Court, Pramod Yadav, Kailash Yadav, Dilip Das, Ramjee Sah, Gopal Das, Jawahar Sah, Kailu Das, Vijay Sah and Temha Yadav surrounded her husband and they were having cleaver and other weapons in their hands and they started beating her husband. Pramod Yadav chased her also and that is why she had to run away. Thereafter, she went to her house and informed PW.4 and thereafter, PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 along with the informant came at the place of occurrence and there were bloodstains, but, the dead body could not be found out by them. The incident had taken place in the evening hours of 6.00 p.m. in the month of February, 2003. Again the informant as well as PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6 came at the place of occurrence, but, at that time, the police had found out the dead body from nearby railway track. PW.8 identified the dead body and she gave fardbeyan to the police of Boarijore Police Station which was reduced in writing which is Ext. 2. On the basis of this fardbeyan. F.I.R. was lodged, investigation was carried out, statement of several witnesses were recorded and charge -sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions being Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the evidences given by PW.1 to PW.9 as well as on the basis of the documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 to be read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -, and in default of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. This appellant has also been punished under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment. This appellant has also been convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo 5 years' rigorous imprisonment with fine to the tune of Rs. 1000/ - and in default of fine, to further undergo 3 months' simple imprisonment. However, the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 76 of 2003 is dated 31st January, 2005. Against this judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present appeal has been preferred.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant who has mainly submitted that there are major omissions, contradictions and improvements in the deposition of prosecution witnesses. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court and, hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Godda deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the so -called sole eye -witness, as alleged by the prosecution, is PW.8, but, looking to her fardbeyan given to Boarijore Police Station, District -Godda and looking to her deposition as PW.8, there are major omissions and contradictions in her deposition. Several persons, who were named accused in the F.I.R., have been omitted in her deposition and they are;

(3.) WE have also heard the learned counsel for the State -A.P.P. who has submitted that no error has been committed by the trial Court in appreciating the evidence on record. The case of prosecution is based upon evidence of eye -witness PW.8. The murder has taken place on 12th February, 2003 and immediate is the F.I.R. on 13th February, 2003, this appellant has been named in the F.I.R. The prosecution has examined several witnesses from PW.1 to PW.9 and PW.8 is the informant wife of the deceased, namely Amik Yadav. Looking to her deposition, she has clearly narrated the role played by this appellant -accused. When she was returning with her husband from the Court at Godda at about 6.00 p.m. on 12th February, 2003, this appellant along with several other accused in connivance with each other and sharing common intention with rest of the accused, committed murder of the deceased. She has further staled in her deposition that one sharp -cutting instrument as well as with other weapons including cleaver, this appellant and other accused caused serious injuries to Amik Yadav and the other accused had also chased PW.8, the informant. The informant had run away from the place of occurrence and rushed to her house. She immediately informed PW.4, who is a close relative and PW.4 along with PW.5. PW.6 and informant PW.8 returned to the place of occurrence. There were bloodstains but no dead body was found out because of late night and darkness, they were unable to find out the dead body of the deceased. They returned home and on the next day morning they again came to the place of occurrence where there was a police and the police has found out the dead body which was found near Railway Track where she gave her fardbeyan which is Ext. 2, in which there are several names of the accused have been given. Four were tried in the Session Case No. 76 of 2003 and others were absconding. Looking to the deposition of PW.8 to be read with PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the present appellant for causing murder of the deceased in connivance with other accused and in furtherance of their common intention with rest of the accused and they had also thrown away the dead body on railway track and thereby caused disappearance of the offence. Therefore, they have been rightly punished for an offence under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment as well as for an offence under Section 120 -B of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment and also this appellant has rightly been punished for an offence under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for five years' rigorous imprisonment, Hence, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Moreover, the medical evidence is also corroborative to the deposition of PW.8, eyewitness, to be read with deposition given by PW.4, PW.5 and PW.6. Moreover. Clerk of the Advocate PW.9 has also proved several documents, though, he was not cited as a witness in the charge -sheet. This universal witness has proved F.I.R. and inquest report, though he has no concern with the whole case. These types of witnesses are easily available in the lower Courts and because of their easy availability and as they are very handy, they are normally examined in the trial Courts in the State of Jharkhand.