LOBHNATH RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.1.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2001 (G.R. No. 249 of 2000). This appellant has been convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. for life imprisonment vide order dated 13 & 16 January, 2003. The case of the prosecution is that on 07.10.2000 at 00:45 hours (i.e. 12.45 A.M.), the informant Smt. Turo Bai (P.W. -1) gave ferdbayan to police that on 6.10.2000 at about 7 -8 AM., her husband Chinia Ram, deceased, and her brother -in -law Lobhnath Ram (accused) had gone to village -Karamtoli, Duldula (Jashpur) for practicing "Jhar -phuk'. They returned to their house on same day at 2 P.M. with a gift of goat. At around 3 -4 P.M. the said goat was butchered and both brothers took one K.G. of meat in their share. Then a quarter K.G. of meat was given to Jagmohan Ram and about half K.G. of meat was sold to Maheshwari Ram at a price of Rs. 25/ -. After sharing the meat, informant husband and her brother -in -law, started logger heading and fighting for the head of the goat. Thereafter, when the informant was taking back her husband to the house, then her brother -in -law, Lobhnath Ram came with Balua from his house and in his courtyard, near the Jackal tree, he assaulted the informant husband with Balua two -three times from behind, as a result, informant husband get injured and fall down. And, when informant raised hulla, then her nephew Jagmohan Ram came their running and snatched the Balua from the hand of Lobhnath Ram. Thereafter hearing hulla, Fulmani Devi, Ram Prasad Ram, Rajendra Prasad Sai and others persons came there and saw her husband in injured condition. Then informant narrated to them about the occurrence. Thereafter informant took her husband with the help of Fulmani Devi to her house and started preparing to take her husband to Kurdeg for treatment. In the meantime her husband died.

(2.) AFTER lodging of the F.I.R., the investigation was carried out by the police and several statements of the witnesses were recorded. The charge sheet was filed against this appellant -accused and the case was committed to the Sessions Court being Sessions Trial No. 224 of 2001 and on the basis of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from the P.W. -1 to P.W. -10 and on the basis of the other documentary evidence on record, the learned trial court has convicted the appellant -accused for the offence of murder of the deceased on 13.1.2003 and has been sentenced for life imprisonment vide order dated 16.1.2003. Against this judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

(3.) WE have heard the learned A.P.P. appearing for the State, has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned trial court in evaluating the depositions of the prosecution witnesses. The case of the prosecution is based upon the eye witness who is wife of the deceased. There is no mistaken identity of the appellant - accused as the appellant and the deceased are brothers. It is submitted by the A.P.P. that P.W. -1 is clearly narrated the role played by this appellant - accused for causing murder of his brother. The weapon Balua has been used, which is a sharp cutting instrument and P.W. -1, who is an eye witness has stated that there was some hot altercation between the two brothers, and therefore, P.W. -1, she being the wife of the deceased was dragging her at her house, but this appellant -accused brought the weapon Balua from his house, came nearby the house of the victim and caused several injuries upon the body of the victim, and therefore, the deceased expired on the spot. It is also submitted by the A.P.P. that nothing is coming out in cross examination in favour of this appellant -accused. Moreover, the depositions of P.W. -1 is getting enough corroboration to the medical evidence given by the P.W. -9, who is a doctor, Dr. K.D. Choudhary, and there are as many as five injuries which are capable of being caused by weapon Balua specially injury Nos. 1, 2 and 5. It is also submitted by the learned A.P.P. that looking to the other depositions of the prosecution witnesses, though they are not the eye witnesses as like P.W. -5, she has snatched the weapon from the hands of the appellant -accused. Thus, the deposition of P.W. -5 is also corroborative to the depositions of P.W. -1 and the P.W. -1 has also referred P.W. -5 in her deposition. Thus, no error has been committed by the learned trial court in appreciating the evidence of P.W. -1 and other prosecution witnesses, who are corroborating the deposition of the eye witness, and therefore, this appeal may not be entertained by this Court.