CHHATRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 23.06.2007 and 25.06.2007 respectively, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court VI, Hazaribag in connection with Sessions Trial No. 476 of 1989 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 53 of 1989 arising out of Chouparan P.S. Case No. 16 of 1989 whereby sole appellant Chhatra Yadav alias Chhatradhari Yadav has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and also to pay fine to the tune of Rs. 3000/ - and in case of default in making payment of fine, further S.I. for six months. Prosecution case, as it appears from the First Information Report of Jhari Yadav is that on 30.01.1989 at about 4.30 p.m. while the informant was returning home from the forest and reached near Charkathwa dam, he was informed by wife of Chintaman Mahto that his mother has been killed by Chhatra. After receiving such information the informant rushed to the place and found some villagers assembled over there. He had seen dead body of his mother lying in pool of blood. The matter was reported to the police and a case being Chouparan P.S. Case No. 16 of 1989 under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against accused Chhatra Yadav alias Chhatradhari Yadav. The Police, after due investigation, submitted charge -sheet. Accordingly, cognizance was taken, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as S.T. No. 476 of 1989. After framing of the charge, the appellant was put on trial. The prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses to substantiate the charge. The learned trial court, after considering the evidence and documents on record, held the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as indicated above, hence this appeal.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the trial court has committed gross error by holding the appellant guilty for the offence of murder by placing reliance on solitary eye witness P.W. 1 Saroj Devi. It is submitted that statement of PW -1 is not reliable and convincing. The place of occurrence is nearer to the house of PW 1 but no other family members has come forward to corroborate the version of PW -1. She has admitted in her cross -examination that 23 more houses are situated near her house but she does not know name of the occupants. The First Information Report lodged by Jhari Yadav PW -2 is based on the information received from Saroj Devi PW -1 but this fact is not corroborated by Saroj Devi. She did not say that she ever informed or talked to Jhari Yadav about the incident. Land dispute between informant and appellant is admitted and they are agnates. The remaining witnesses are either hearsay or formal in nature. The doctor who had conducted post -mortem examination on the dead body of deceased has not been examined rather another doctor Sunil Kumar Singh has proved the post -mortem report. Non -examination of doctor who had conducted autopsy has caused prejudice to the appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence which is based on the solitary testimony of eye witness Saroj Devi, PW -1 is not tenable.

(3.) Learned A.P.P. Sri Vinay Kumar Tiwary has opposed the argument and submitted that PW -1 Saroj Devi is an independent witness and she has given true picture of the occurrence without any exaggeration. Simple perusal of deposition of PW 1 would suggest that she is a truthful witness. PW -1 has clearly stated that after seeing the occurrence she run towards the village and raised hulla. The statement of PW -2 Jhari Yadav appears natural when he says that in course of returning home when he reached near Charkathwa dam, he saw the people assembled and there was hue and cry. When he reached to the place, he saw his mother having injuries on her person and lying in pool of blood. He could learn from Saroj Devi that the appellant, by means of tangi, caused injury to the mother of informant and killed her. There is consistency in the statement of PW -1 and PW -2. PW -3 Pokhan Yadav has also corroborated this fact that there was hue and cry near the place of occurrence. Saroj Devi informed about the occurrence to the people present over there. He had seen the dead body and noticed injuries on the head. He is also witness to the inquest report and the seizure list. PW -4 Sheo Dayal Yadav, PW -6 Rupan Yadav and PW -7 Baleshwar Yadav are formal witnesses and they have also given hearsay account of the occurrence. The doctor has proved the post -mortem report and the appellant did get opportunity to cross -examine him.