Jharkhand High CourtAsin Ram & Ors. vs State Of Jharkhand & Ors. on 26 August, 2010Equivalent citations: 2011 (1) AIR JHAR R 547, (2010) 4 JCR 498 (JHA)Author:D.G.R. PatnaikBench:D.G.R. Patnaik1



                           Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.17 of 2001
                                        With
                           Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.47 of 2001

(Against the common judgment and sentence recorded in S.T. No.66/98 by the
3rd Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, arising out of Chanho P.S. Case
No.27/97, corresponding to G.R. No.1671/97)

In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.17 of 2001

1. Asin Ram
2. Sohan Ram
3. Vinod Ram--               --     ---   --             --    --    --     --Appellants
                                       Versus
The State of Jharkhand--     --     --    --             --    --    --     --Respondent

In Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.47 of 2001

1. Krishna Ram
2. Mohan Ram--       --      --     --        --         --    --    --     --Appellants
                                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand--     --     --        --         --    --    --     --Respondent

                                              --------

      CORAM          :       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.G.R. PATNAIK
                             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.K. SINHA

For the Appellants                 : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate
For the State                     : Mr. I.N. Gupta, A.P.P.

                                    -----

Reserved on: 06-08-2010                                  Pronounced on: 26 /08/2010

D.K. Sinha, J.               Both the criminal appeals are taken up together arising out of
             common judgment and sentence recorded in S.T. No.66/98 by the 3rd
             Additional Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, arising out of Chanho P.S. Case
             No.27/97, corresponding to G.R. No.1671/97.
             2.           It is relevant to mention that the appellants Asin Ram, Sohan Ram
             and Vinod Ram of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.17 of 2001 were convicted underSections 148and325of the Indian Penal Code, accordingly sentenced to
             undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and three years respectively.
             The appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram of Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.47 of
             2001 were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
             three years respectively for conviction of each of them underSections
             148/325of the Indian Penal Code. Each of them were further convicted underSections 302/34, Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for
             life.
                                                       2


3.                  Prosecution story in short, as it stands narrated in the
Fardbeyan of the informant P.W.-1 Udit Ram on 16.7.1997 at about 7:00 a.m.
before the police at the Government Hospital, Chanho that on the previous
day i.e. on 15.7.1997 (Tuesday) at about 8:00 p.m. while he was having
interaction with his father Laxaman Ram (since deceased), uncle Sukra Ram,
mother Sampati Devi and grandfather Raghu Ram on the domestic issues, in
the meantime, all the appellants including one Shanti Devi(acquitted) wife of
the appellant Asin Ram appeared at the door of the informant and started
abusing calling upon the inmates of the house to come out expressing their
anger as to why they had been calling Shanti Devi as witch. The inmates
including the informant objected the filthy language being used by the
accused persons, whereupon, it was alleged that the appellant Asin Ram
commanded the other accused persons to eliminate them all. Pursuant to that
the appellant Krishna Ram, who was having sword in his hand inflicted blow
causing head injury to the mother of the informant Sampati Devi. Informant
was assaulted by the appellants Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram with sticks.
Consequent to sustaining injuries on his head and near his right eye, he fell
down with his mother near a mango tree. It was further alleged that the
appellants then started assaulting his grandfather Raghu Ram whereupon the
father of the informant Laxaman Ram(since deceased) came forward to rescue
the victims but on the command of the appellant Asin Ram, the other accused
chased Laxaman Ram with the intention to assault him. His father Laxaman
Ram tried to escape from the place of occurrence and started running but
having been chased by the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram,
followed by the uncle of the informant Sukra Ram, Laxaman Ram was caught
hold by the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram on the Bijupara-Khelari
road at a distance of about 1/2 Km. from Barhaiya and both the appellants
with the help of Nepala (dagger) and sword committed murder of his father.
No sooner did the witnesses arrive at the scene, both the appellants escaped.
His father Laxaman Ram was found dead on the flank of the road sustaining
injuries. The dead body was taken care of in the night by the witnesses and
the occurrence was communicated to the police in the morning. On the basis
of the Fardbeyan of the informant Udit Ram, Chanho P.S. Case No.27/97 was
registered for the alleged offence underSections 147/148/149/323/307/302of the Indian Penal Code against all the six named accused persons including
one Shanti Devi. The Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against all
the six named accused under the alleged offence. After commitment, charge
was framed against the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram under
                                                           3Sections 302/34of the Indian Penal Code. Besides, charges against all the six
named accused Krishna Ram , Mohan Ram, Asin Ram, Sohan Ram , Vinod
Ram, and Shanti Devi were framed underSections 148/149/324/325/307of
the Indian Penal Code, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
After examination of nine witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution,
the accused-appellants including Shanti Devi were examined underSection
313of the Code of Criminal Procedure who were confronted with the
incriminating materials collected in course of trial, to which they denied their
guilt and expressed desire to adduce evidence in their defence.
4.              That apart, the prosecution proved the post-mortem report of
the deceased Ext.5; injury reports of the injured witnesses Exts. 6, 6/1, and
6/2; Fardbeyan Ext.1/1; Seizure list Exts.3 and 4/2; formal F.I.R. Ext.7;
requisition of injury reports of the witnesses Exts. 8, 8/1, and 8/2. The
defence produced and examined three witnesses and proved the death
certificate of Laxaman Ram Ext.A; copy of the petition of Sampati Devi Ext.B;
order sheet Ext.C and signatures of the four witnesses on the order sheet
being Exts. B/1, B/2, B/3, and B/4.
5.            Autopsy on the dead body of Laxaman Ram was held by P.W.-7
Dr. Niranjan Minz on 16.7.1997 at 12:30 hours who found the following
injuries:
               "I. 6 x 2cm x scalp deep on left frontal region of head.
               II. 5 x 1cm x bone deep on right eyebrow. Lateral side with complete
       fracture of underline bone.
              III. 2 x 1cm x bone deep right eyebrow mid side with fracture of
       underline bone.
             IV. 3 x 2cm x bone deep on bridge of nose. The underline bone are
       broken upto pieces.
            V. 7 x 2cm into bone deep left cheek preminance with fracture of
       underline bone.
           VI. 5x 2cm x bone deep left side of chin with complete fracture of
       underline mandible bone.
          VII. 3x 2 cm x bone deep right side of chin with complete fracture of
       underline mandible bone.
       Abrasion:-
               1. 3cm x 2 cm right elbow back.
              2. 4cm x 2cm right lumbar region back."

6.             In the opinion of the Doctor, all the injuries were ante mortem
in nature caused by hard and blunt substance. Inquest report Ext.2/2
indicated that the deceased had sustained injuries on its face appeared to be
caused by some sharp edged weapon and it was observed by the trial Judge
that the nature of injuries mentioned in Ext.5 (post mortem report) and
Ext.2/2 (inquest report) suggested that some sharp cutting weapons were
used in inflicting injuries on the person of the deceased. Defence case was
                                                        4


consistent that the father of the informant Laxaman Ram died in a road
accident and certain documents were proved which shall be discussed at the
later stage.
7.                  P.W.-1 Udit Ram, who is the informant of the case, was
consistent that at the relevant time the appellant Krishna Ram was armed
with sword, the appellant Mohan Ram was having Nepala (dagger), other
appellants Asin Ram, Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram were holding sticks, who
suddenly appeared at his door and started uttering abusive language which
was opposed by the witnesses. Informant further testified that his mother was
attacked by the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram with sword and
Nepala (dagger), whereas the appellants Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram
assaulted him with sticks. He substantiated his earlier statement by testifying
that his father Laxaman Ram when came to rescue the victims, Krishna Ram
and Mohan Ram chased him up to about half a Km., caught hold him and
committed murder on Barhaiya-Khelari road. P.W.-2 Gandur Ram, i.e. the
brother of the informant was consistent in his evidence that when he came
out from his house on hearing alarm, witnessed all the accused assaulting his
brother Udit Ram, grandfather Raghu Ram and his mother Sampati Devi. He
further narrated that Krishna Ram was holding sword and Mohan Ram was
having Nepala (dagger) in his hand, whereas the other accused were holding
sticks. He testified that the accused Krishna Ram, Mohan Ram, Asin Ram,
Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram chased his father up to a long distance and
assaulted him on the road causing his death. P.W.-3 Gopal Ram, P.W.-4
Raghu Ram, P.W.-5 Sampati Devi and P.W.-6 Sukhari Ram claimed to be the
eye witnesses, who were present at the scene at the relevant time of
occurrence and corroborated the testimony of P.W.-1 and P.W.-2 in their
substantive evidence. The witnesses were consistent about the presence of all
the six accused at the first place of occurrence, situated opposite their house
and it were only the appellants who chased the deceased. The witnesses were
further consistent that in the same transaction of assault by the accused the
informant P.W.-1, his mother Sampati Devi and his grandfather P.W.-4 Raghu
Ram sustained injuries at the place of occurrence and their injuries were
examined at the Chanho Government Hospital. Injuries sustained by P.W.-1
Udit Ram, P.W.-4 Raghu Ram and P.W.-5 Sampati Devi were proved and
marked Exts. 6/1, 6, and 6/2 respectively. It was observed by the trial Court
that all the accused persons except Shanti Devi applied the force and caused
rioting after forming an unlawful assembly and the occurrence was given
effect to in prosecution of their common object having been armed with
                                                        5


deadly weapon like sword and Nepala ( a sharp cutting heavy weapon like
Khukri).
8.              Learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the appellants
at the outset, took the defence that the father of the informant Laxaman Ram
had died in a road accident and not on account of homicidal death and for
that the widow of the deceased P.W.-5 Sampati Devi had applied and
received compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- from the Block Office under
National Social Welfare Scheme. The death certificate of the deceased was
proved and marked Ext.A; application of P.W.-5 Sampati Devi filed before
the B.D.O. was marked Ext.B; certified copy of the order-sheet of case
No.17/97-98 recorded by the Circle Officer was marked Ext.C. It was
observed by the Circle Officer in the order sheet that since the husband of the
applicant died due to injuries caused by blunt edged weapon on Khelari-
Bijupara road, she was entitled for such grant.
9.              Reference may be made to the statement of the Investigating
Officer P.W.-9 Awadesh Singh who deposed that on 16.7.1997 while he was
posted as Sub Inspector of Police at Chanho police station, he recorded the
statement of the informant Udit Ram at Government Hospital, Chanho at
about      7:00 a.m. Ext.1/1.   He proved his signature thereon Ext.1/2,
endorsement in his pen and signature Ext.2. The F.I.R. was drawn on the
basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant in his pen and signature which was
proved and marked Ext.7. A case was instituted against the accused persons
underSections 147/148/149/302/307/324/325of the Indian Penal Code. He
prepared requisition slips for the examination of the injuries of the injured
Raghu Ram, Sampati Devi and the informant Udit Ram, which were marked
Exts. 6, 6/1 and 6/2. He testified that he visited the place of occurrence in
presence of the informant Udit Ram and described in his objective finding
that the place of occurrence was a pitched road between Bijupara to Khelari
with 6 ft. wide flanks on both sides of road and the dead body of Laxaman
Ram was found on the western flank of the road lying from its dorsal side
with the limbs stretched,   injuries on the body and pool of blood near the
head of the corpse. A Nepala (dagger) was also found near the dead body
which was blood stained. Nepala was seized with the blood stained earth, in
presence of the witnesses. Inquest report of the corpse of Laxaman Ram was
also prepared by him which was marked Ext.2/2. The Investigating Officer
then visited another place of occurrence situated opposite the house of the
informant Udit Ram at a distance of about 50 ft. towards east where he
spotted blood stains on the earth. He collected blood stained earth there in
                                                        6


presence of the witnesses and prepared seizure list Ext.3/1.      The witness
Investigating Officer admitted a counter case instituted by the accused
Krishna Ram     which was recorded by him at the Chanho Government
Hospital itself but fairly conceded having not made reference to the counter
case in the case diary of the instant case. The Investigating Officer expressed
ignorance as to whether the accused Krishna Ram sustained injuries alleged
to be caused by an axe as described in the counter case or as to whether the
mother of Krishna Ram also sustained injuries in the same transaction. He
admitted having not sent the blood stained earth which were seized in this
case to the Forensic Science Laboratory and further admitted having not tried
to find out the contents of the application that was filed by the widow of the
deceased Sampati Devi at the Chanho Block for compensation on the death
of her husband in a motor accident on 16.7.1997 and that accordingly, she
received compensation, yet, he denied the suggestion that Laxaman Ram
died in a motor accident.
10.          Learned counsel Mr. A.K. Sahani reiterated that the occurrence
did not take place in the manner presented by the prosecution. The counter
case that has been lodged by the appellants was not denied by the
Investigating Officer to which both the cases should have been decided by the
same and similar court. P.W.-7 Dr. Niranjan Minz, who held autopsy on the
body of Laxaman Ram         was not definite in his opinion expressed in his
evidence that the injuries found on the person of the deceased Laxaman Ram
were caused by Nepala ( a heavy sharp cutting weapon) or by a sword but he
was definite that the injuries were caused by hard and blunt substance. As a
matter of fact, Laxaman Ram succumbed his injuries in the motor accident,
which took place in the night of 16.7.1997 at Bijupara- Khelari road and that
his widow Sampati Devi had received compensation on the death of her
husband.
11.         We have carefully gone through the documents produced and
adduced on behalf of the defence. Ext. A is the death certificate of Laxaman
Ram son of Raghu Ram, which indicates that he died on 16.7.1997. It was
issued by the competent authority and his death was registered on 31.7.1997.
Ext. B is the application for grant under National Scheme, which was filed by
Sampati Devi before the B.D.O.,duly recommended by the former Mukhia of
the village Gram Panchayat and attested by the Village Choukidar. Ext. C is
the order sheet recorded by the Circle Officer, Chanho, who allowed a sum
of Rs.10,000/- to be given to Sampati Devi as ex gratia grant on the 'murder'
of her husband caused by sharp cutting weapon at Khelari-Bijupara road on
                                                        7


16.7.1997. The amount was delivered on 16.9.1997. We find from the order-
sheet (Ext. C) that ex gratia grant was given to the widow Sampati Devi on
the death of her husband Laxaman Ram under National Family Welfare
Scheme and not by way of compensation on the death of her husband in a
motor accident. The defence of the appellants therefore, could not be
substantiated by the documents produced on their behalf. Ext. D is the
certified copy of the F.I.R. of Chanho P.S. Case No.28/97, which was lodged
by the appellant Krishna Ram as against Sukra Ram, Gopal Ram, Udit Ram,
Gandur Ram, and Raghu Ram, registered underSections 147/148/323/324of
the Indian Penal Code but the defence failed to bring otherwise fact on the
record that the occurrence did not take place in the manner presented in the
instant case by the prosecution.12.          The post mortem report (Ext.5) indicated that Laxaman Ram
sustained injuries of different dimensions mostly on the face and head, ante
mortem in nature, but none of the injuries on the head was crushed or
depressed so as to draw a conclusion that it were possible by his coming
under the wheels of running motor vehicle or the same could be caused by
the impact of running motor vehicle. We find that the injured witnesses viz.
P.W.-1 Udit Ram, P.W.-5 Sampati Devi and P.W.-4 Raghu Ram had sustained
their injuries and they were in the near proximity of the assailants
(appellants) and were the natural witnesses. Their injuries were examined by
P.W.-8 Dr. Biren Tirkey who issued their injuries reports viz. Ext. 6, 6/1 and
6/2 and that none of the injuries on the person of the injured, in the opinion
of the Doctor, was caused by sharp cutting weapon but by hard and blunt
object. We find that the appellants were convicted underSection 325and
underSection 148, Indian Penal Code, inference thereby that the appellants
were the members of unlawful assembly, two of them were armed with
deadly weapons like sword and Nepala and some holding sticks with the
common object to assault the witnesses. The charges underSections 325and148of the Indian Penal Code were found to be properly proved by the
prosecution against all the appellants, accordingly all the appellants were
convicted underSections 148and325, Indian Penal Code and adequately
sentenced which did not call for interference.13.                We find from the materials on the record that while the
witnesses P.W.-1 Udit Ram, P.W.-3 Gopal Ram, P.W.-4 Raghu Ram, P.W.-5
Sampati Devi, P.W.-6 Sukhari Ram and Laxaman Ram (deceased) being the
members of the same family were talking and having interaction on domestic
issues, the appellants with Shanti Devi appeared at the door of the witnesses8at about 8:00 p.m. on 15.7.1997 and they started abusing by expressing
resentment as to why they were calling Shanti Devi as Daaine (witch) which
resulted into altercation and the appellants assaulted the witnesses with their
individual attribution, discussed hereinbefore. As per P.W.-2 Gandur Ram, he
appeared at the scene on alarm raised there and found the appellants
assaulting his mother, brother and grandfather and amongst them Krishna
Ram was having sword in his hand whereas Mohan Ram was holding Nepala
(dagger). Others were armed with sticks. In the meantime, when his father
came out of the house, it was Asin Ram who commanded to eliminate him,
consequently his father (Laxaman Ram) tried to escape by running from that
place to which he was chased by all the appellants on the road, overpowered
and assaulted by them as a result of which he died. He testified that
appellants were followed by him, his brother Udit Ram and uncle P.W.-6
Sukhari Ram who witnessed the deceased being assaulted by all the
appellants.14.                The informant P.W.-1 was specific in his testimony that his
father Laxaman Ram was chased by the appellants Mohan Ram with Nepala
(dagger) and Krishna Ram with sword on the Barhaiya Khelari Road, who
caught hold him and assaulted on his face and head to death. The assailants
escaped on his arrival and arrival of P.W.-6 Sukhar Ram. He was cross
examined at length but credibility of his testimony could not be shaken.15.              The another witness P.W.-6 Sukhar Ram, who happens to be
the full brother of the deceased, testified that on 15.7.1997 at about 8:00 p.m.
he was there in the house of his brother Laxaman Ram having interaction on
domestic issue with his father Raghu Ram, nephew Udit Ram, sister-in-law
Sampati Devi and brother Laxaman Ram. In the meantime, his neighbours
Krishna Ram having sword in his hand, Mohan Ram holding Nepala
(dagger), Asin Ram, Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram all having sticks in their
hands with Shanti Devi arrived there and started abusing. He testified that
his sister-in-law Sampati Devi was assaulted by Krishna Ram on her head
with sword, whereas other appellants assaulted her with sticks, Udit Ram
was assaulted by Sohan Ram and Vinod Ram by sticks. When the assailants
started assaulting his father Raghu Ram, his brother Laxaman Ram came
forward to rescue his father whereupon Asin Ram commanded the other
accused to eliminate him. His brother Laxaman Ram tried to escape by
running from the place of occurrence but he was chased by Krishna Ram and
Mohan Ram with their respective weapons in hands followed by him and his
nephew Udit Ram. This witness was specific that both the appellants Krishna9Ram and Mohan Ram caught hold Laxaman Ram on the Khelari-Bijupara
pitched road near the house of one Binod Sahu and they assaulted Laxaman
Ram to death. No sooner did he along with his nephew Udit Ram appear at
the scene, the assailants escaped. He was examined and cross-examined at
length but his veracity of the sequence of the occurrence and the complicity of
the appellants therein resulted into death of Laxaman Ram could not be
discredited. We find that the trial Court mainly relying upon the statement of
P.W.-1 Udit Ram and P.W-6 Sukhari Ram convicted the appellants Krishna
Ram and Mohan Ram underSections 302/34of the Indian Penal Code with
specific allegation of culpable homicide attributed against each of them that
such offence was given effect to in furtherance of common intention. The
dead body was found on the flank of the road towards Western side from
where the Investigating Officer had recovered a blood stained Nepala lying
by the side of the corpse. No crush injury or any other injury on the corpse
caused by any motor vehicle or track mark of the tyres of vehicle could be
found near the dead body. Almost all the injuries were on the face and
according to the P.W.-1 Udit Ram and P.W.-6 Sukhar Ram, the same were
caused by the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram.16.         The defence had produced three witnesses to substantiate that
Laxaman Ram died in a motor accident and for that his widow Sampati Devi
was   compensated under the National Scheme. But we find from the
documents brought on the record on their behalf that the widow had not
received any compensation towards the death of her husband in a motor
accident, rather it was an ex gratia grant on the death of the head of the
family under the National Scheme, to which we find the order-sheet (Ext. C)
clearly drawn by the Circle Officer of the Chanho Block, a competent
authority to make such grant who passed the order after due inquiry.17.              In the facts and circumstances, we find that the charges as
framed against the appellants were well proved and the trial Court was
justified in holding the appellants Krishna Ram and Mohan Ram guilty underSections 302/34of the Indian Penal Code. We further find that appellants
Asin Ram, Sohan Ram, Vinod Ram along with the appellants Krishna Ram
and Mohan Ram have been appropriately held guilty underSections 325and148of the Indian Penal Code and adequately sentenced. The learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellants failed to show any ground so as to call
for interference in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded
against the appellants of both the appeals. Upholding the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence recorded by the 3rd A.J.C. Ranchi in S.T.10No.66/1998 against the appellants, there being no merit, both the appeals are
             dismissed. Trial Court is directed to take effective steps in accordance with
             law.(D.K. Sinha, J.)


(D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)


                                                         (D.G.R. Patnaik, J.)

The High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated- 26 August, 2010
S.B./A.F.R.