CHURKA MURMU Vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Cr. Appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.08.2004 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge-I, Pakur in connection with S.C.No.24/2002, corresponding to G.R.No.301/2001 (T.R.No.72/2002), arising out of Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 38/2001 whereby appellants have been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000.00 each and in default of making payment of fine further R.I. for one year.

(2.) The facts emerging from the fardbayan of Pandu Hembrom recorded on 14.07.2001 at 14 hours at village Ramakura near the house of Chhotu Murmu is that on 14.07.2001 Pradhan Hembrom (son of the informant) had left home at about 7 a.m. for grazing cattle. When he reached near a culvert situated on the road of village Pipaljori, the appellants and their associates armed with lathi, bows and arrow, Dab etc. restrained Pradhan Hemrbom and subjected him to assault. The informant raised alarm which attracted villagers and the witnesses but they did not dare to intervene. The informant also confined himself in the house. The appellants and their associates after causing assault to Pradhan Hembrom, challenged the informant to come out and forcibly knocked the door from outside. In the meantime, wife of the deceased ran to the place and took Pradhan Hembrom to village Ramakura with the help of Chhotu Murmu but till then Pradhan Hembrom had breathed his last. On the basis of fardbayan, Hiranpur P.S. Case No. 38/2001 dated 14.07.2001, under Sections 147/148/149/302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and their associates was registered. The police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet and accordingly cognizance was taken and the case of the appellants was committed to the court of sessions and registered as S.C. No. 24/2002.

(3.) The appellants have assailed the impugned judgment on the ground that informant is not an eye-witness. He has admitted that he had witnessed the occurrence from a distance of about 100-150 yards. There is admission in the fardbayan itself that seeing the assault he confined himself inside the house. Had it been so he had no occasion to see the entire episode of assault. Churamani Marandi (P.W.10) happens to be wife of the deceased and according to her own statement, she had reached to the place when the occurrence of assault was over. She has stated that occurrence was seen by her while she was sitting in the courtyard. In fact she had also not witnessed the occurrence. P.W.6-Rajan Hembrom, who is the brother of the deceased, has exaggerated the occurrence in his deposition in Court. He has described that accused persons were holding sickle, bows and arrow, dab, lathi etc. The informant did not say that any of the accused was armed with sickle. As a matter of fact, no witness other than P.W.6 have stated that the deceased was assaulted by means of stone so this is again exaggeration in the statement of P.W.6. Vijay Hembrom (P.W.3) has stated that appellants and their associates had been chasing the deceased for causing assault but it is not appearing in his statement recorded under Sec. 161 of the Crimial P.C. This contradiction was taken and referred to I.O. in para 16 and I.O. has confirmed that such statement was not given by Vijay Hembrom (P.W.3). Besides the above, it is submitted that only family members have supported the prosecution case and they all are highly interested witnesses. The time of occurrence according to prosecution case is about 7 a.m. in the morning and the place of occurrence is the village road. Presence of villagers at that point of time is always expected but no villager has come forward to support the evidence brought on record by family members of the deceased. Non-examination of independent witness is fatal to the prosecution. Chhotu Murmu (P.W.1), Shivdhan Marandi (P.W.2), Shri Babu Ram Hembrom (P.W.4) and Shri Lal Kisku (P.W.5) have turned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. It is disclosed by the informant that P.W.10 with the help of Chhotu Murmu took the deceased to village Ramakura but this contention of P.W.10 does not find support from evidence of P.W.1. Weapon held by the appellants, manner of occurrence described by the informant and other witnesses are also contradictory to each other. The learned Trial Judge has wrongly appreciated the evidence and held the appellants guilty. All the eye-witnesses have not identified all the appellants in Court. Therefore, identification of appellants in Court is also not consistent in the statement of so-called eye-witnesses, who are none else but the family members and highly interested witnesses. The land dispute between the appellants and the family members of the deceased was prevailing from before is admitted and to support this fact certain documents have been brought on record and those documents have been marked Ext. A to A/6.