CR. APPEAL (DB) No. 424 of 2000R
-------
Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27th
May, 2000 passed in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994 by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Chaibasa.
——-
Budhdeo Purty ... ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... ... Respondent
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. M.K. Sinha, Appellant
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R. PRASAD
-------
Oral Order :
Per D.N. Patel, J.
Dt. 1st September, 2009 The present appeal has been preferred by the sole appellant
against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence both dated
27th May, 2000 passed by learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Chaibasa in
Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994, whereby, the present appellant has been convicted
for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to
undergo life imprisonment for causing murder of Budhni Devi.
2. If the case of the prosecution is unfolded, the relevant facts are as
under:
It is the case of the prosecution that the whole incident had taken
place on 3rd December, 1993 at 4.00 p.m. when Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and
the deceased- Budhni Devi were returning from Village-Haldia at footpath
of Village Heperburu and at that time, the appellant-accused came
suddenly with a stick and caused injury to the deceased- Budhni Devi.
When the informant- Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) tried to save the life of the
deceased, she was again caused injury by stick and thereafter Tilotma Devi
(P.W. 3) ran away and while running away, she saw that the appellant was
causing injuries by stone to Budhni Devi on her head, who had fallen down.
There was profuse bleeding also. The informant (P.W. 3) was also given a
2
stick blow by the appellant-accused. Having received bleeding injury, the
informant ran to the house of one Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4). The informant
was also shouting for rescue of the deceased, but, nobody came at the scene
of offence to save her. Thereafter, Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) immediately
came at the scene of offence along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12. Thereafter,
police was called. Meanwhile, for the whole night all remained present near
the dead-body. The appellant-accused, who was apprehended by the
villagers, was also compelled to stay there and the First Information report
was lodged on 4th December, 1993 at 6.00 a.m. at Village Heperburu, Police
Station-Majhgaon, District Singhbhum West. Investigation was carried out,
wherein, statements of the witnesses were recorded, evidences were
collected and ultimately, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant-
accused and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions,
where it was numbered as Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994 and the trial court
after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses, passed the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th May,
2000 against the present appellant-accused for the offence under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code for causing murder of Budhni Devi.
Against the impugned judgment and order of conviction and
sentence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, who has submitted
that no motive has been established by the prosecution as there was no animosity
between the deceased and the appellant-accused. In fact, the appellant-accused is
handicapped. There is no eye witness except P.W. 3 and the depositions of the
prosecution witnesses are full of omissions, contradictions and improvements.
This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial court and
hence the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence deserve to be
quashed and set aside. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant
3
that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, which is also fatal
to the case of the prosecution.
4. We have heard learned A.P.P., appearing on behalf of the State, who
has submitted that the whole case of the prosecution is based upon the deposition
of the injured eye witness i.e. Tilotma Devi-P.W. 3 (the informant). The appellant-
accused is named in the First Information Report. P.W. 3 has seen the whole
offence, committed by the appellant-accused. When P.W. 3 and the deceased were
returning from Village Haldia at a footpath of Village Heperburu, assault was
committed by the appellant-accused on the deceased as well as on the informant.
The informant has also sustained head injury and there was bleeding also. Initially,
the deceased was given a stick blow, as a result of which, she fell down and the
appellant-accused thereafter caused injuries on her head by means of stone. There
was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence and the stick and stone both were
having blood stains and were lying near the dead-body. The injured eye witness
(P.W. 3) shouted for rescue but no-body came at the scene of offence. Thereafter,
she ran towards the village at the house of one Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) who came
at the scene of offence with his servants (P.W. 11 and P.W. 12) who are also the
villagers. Looking to the deposition of all these prosecution witnesses, it appears
that they have supported the deposition of P.W. 3. Thus, the case of the
prosecution is based upon the deposition given by the injured eye witness (P.W. 3),
supported by the depositions of P.W. 4, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, who are the
villagers, who had rushed immediately at the scene of offence. There is also
enough corroboration to the depositions by the medial evidence of Dr. Sheo
Shankar Birua (P.W. 13), who has carried out the post mortem examination upon
the dead body of the deceased. As per the medical evidence, cause of death of the
deceased is head injury and the injury is capable of being caused by stone. It is also
submitted by the A.P.P. that when the whole case is based upon the deposition
given by the eye witness, which is getting enough corroboration by the depositions
4
given by other witnesses as well as by the medical evidence, even if the motive is
unable to be established by the prosecution, it is not fatal to the case of the
prosecution. Motive was within the knowledge of the accused. The informant
(P.W. 3) has no animosity with the appellant-accused, though this witness is also
the villager of Village-Heperburu. In these circumstances, even if motive is not
proved by the prosecution, it is established beyond all reasonable doubt by the
prosecution that the appellant-accused has committed murder of the deceased-
Budhni Devi and, thus, no error has been committed by the trial court in
appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses on record and, therefore,
this Court may not interfere with the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence, by exercising the appellate powers.
5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the
evidences on record, it appears that:
(i) The whole incident had taken place on 3rd December,1993 at about 4.00
p.m. when the informant-Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and the deceased-
Budhni Devi were returning from Village-Haldia at footpath of Village
Heperburu. At that time, the appellant-accused came suddenly with a
stick and caused injuries to the deceased- Budhni Devi as well as to
the informant- Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3), as a result of which, Budhni
Devi fell down and Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3), though got bleeding injury,
ran away and while running away, she saw that it is the present
appellant-accused, who has caused injuries to the deceased by stone on
her head. There was profuse bleeding at the scene of offence. Stick and
stone both were having blood stains, lying near the body of the
deceased.
(ii) Looking to the deposition of P.W. 3-Tilotma Devi, who is the eye
witness to the occurrence, it appears that she has narrated, in her
deposition, how the whole incident has taken place. Thereafter, she
5had run to the house of Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) and immediately P.W.
4 along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 (both servants of P.W. 4) rushed at
the scene of offence. Looking to the cross-examination of this witness,
nothing is coming out in favour of the appellant-accused. The
informant (P.W. 3) has stated that the police came on 4th December,
1993 in the early morning at 6.00 a.m. and the First Information Report
was lodged by her on the same date and time at Village Heperburu,
Police Station-Majhgaon, District Singhbhum West. The appellant-
accused is named in the First Information Report. There is also
reference of stick and stone. She was also injured at the hands of the
appellant-accused. Thus, looking to her deposition, it is evident that
she is a reliable and trustworthy witness. Her injury certificate is Ext. 5,
proved by Shatrudhan Gope (P.W. 14).
(iii) Looking to the deposition of P.W. 4-Nilambar Purty, it appears that
this witness has stated clearly before the trial court that the informant-
Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) came to his house in the injured condition and
told him (P.W. 4) that the appellant-accused (she was narrating the
accused as “Langra”), who is handicapped, has caused injuries to
Budhni Devi by means of stick and stone at a footpath of Village
Heperburu, and her dead-body is lying there. Soon thereafter, P.W. 4
along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 (both servants of P.W. 4) rushed at the
scene of offence and saw the dead-body of Budhni Devi. There was
bleeding also. Blood stained stick and stone were lying nearby the
dead-body. The appellant-accused was also there at the scene of
offence and thereafter the other prosecution witnesses, who are the
villagers, also came there. They also waited for police to come and they
watched the dead-body of Budhni Devi. They also watched the
appellant-accused and on 4th December, 1993 at 6.00 a.m. when the
6
police came, the First Information Report was lodged which was
signed by P.W. 3, P.W. 7 and P.W. 9. Looking to the cross-examination
of P.W. 4, this witness is reliable and trustworthy. Neither there is any
exaggeration nor any omission or contradiction in his deposition.
Though he is not an eye witness, he has corroborated the deposition
given by P.W. 3 and the facts which have been narrated by P.W. 3.
Thus, there is enough corroboration to the deposition given by the eye
witness (P.W.3) and P.W. 4.
(iv) Likewise, looking to the depositions of P.W. 5, P.W. 6, P.W. 7, P.W. 9,
P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, it appears that all the witnesses are the
villagers who rushed at the scene of offence and saw the dead-body of
Budhni Devi in a bleeding condition. Stick and stone were also having
blood stains by which murder was committed by the appellant-
accused. All these witnesses are corroborating the deposition given by
P.W. 3. This aspect of the matter has also been properly appreciated by
the trial Court.
(v) Looking to the deposition given by P.W. 13 -Dr. Sheo Shankar Birua, it
appears that this witness has conducted autopsy of the dead body of
the deceased and has narrated the following injuries, found on the
person of the deceased- Budhni Devi, as under :-
” Head was badly crushed and grey matters coming out
of multiple fracture wound of the scalp. Only anterior and
lower part of the face was left intact.
On dissection of the dead-body, the whole structures of
chest were found intact. The whole structure of abdomen
was intact. Uterus was small. Urinary bladder was full.
In his opinion, the deceased has died due to head injury
caused by hard and blunt heavy substance like heavy
stone. Time elapsed since death was within 48 hours.”
From the aforesaid injuries, it appears that the cause of death,
stated by the doctor, is the head injury, which can be caused by stone.
7
Thus, there is enough corroboration by the medical evidence to the
deposition given by P.W. 3, an injured eye witness. Post Mortem
examination was carried out by this witness (P.W. 13) on 4th December,
1993 at about 3:30 p.m. (Ext. 4) and it is opined by this doctor that the
death of the deceased was caused within 48 hours. Thus, the time
referred to by the doctor is also tallying with the time of murder, stated
by the injured eye witness.
(vi) Looking to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, especially
P.W. 3, P.W. 4, P.W. 10, P.W. 11 and P.W. 12, it is proved by the
prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts that it is the appellant-
accused who has initially caused injuries by stick upon Budhni Devi as
well as upon Tilotma Devi (P.W. 3) and thereafter P.W. 3 ran away and
the deceased-Budhni Devi had fallen down and the appellant-accused
caused head injury upon Budhni Devi by means of stone. The injuries
were so severe in nature that the deceased-Budhni Devi expired on the
spot. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant
about the omissions and contradictions in the depositions, given by
P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8. Looking to the cross-examination of these
witnesses, it appears that though there is some deviation in the
narrations as to how they were coming from one mela, namely,
Venilaga Mela and whether they were going by bicycle or coming by
cart and they saw the dead-body of the deceased at Village-
Heperburu, no omission or contradiction even slightly is there in the
depositions of all the prosecution witnesses to the effect that they all
saw the dead-body of the deceased at Village Heperburu, there was
profuse bleeding and the stick and stone were also having blood
stains. These witnesses are rustic villagers and they have given
depositions after approximately 72 months and, therefore, some
8
deviation on their own part as to whether they were going on bicycle
or by cart, will not carry much material contradiction. So far the
deposition of injured eye witness (P.W. 3) is concerned, she has
narrated the whole incident, in detail, without omission or
contradiction. Further, the witnesses had rushed at the scene of offence
later on and amongst all, Nilambar Purty (P.W. 4) had rushed at the
scene of offence first along with P.W. 11 and P.W. 12. Looking to the
depositions of these witnesses, it is evident that no error has been
committed by the trial court in arriving at the conclusion that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the
appellant-accused has committed murder of the deceased. There is,
thus, no error committed by the trial court in evaluating the evidences
of the prosecution witnesses.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued out, in detail, that
no motive is established by the prosecution. This contention is also not much
useful to the appellant-accused, when the whole case of the prosecution is based
upon the deposition of injured eye witness (P.W. 3), when the deposition of the
injured eye witness is corroborated by the depositions given by P.W. 4, P.W.10 and
P.W. 12 and when there is enough corroboration of the depositions by the medical
evidence (P.W. 13).
7. In these situations, even if motive is not established by the
prosecution, it is not fatal to the prosecution. Motive basically runs in the mind of
the appellant-accused. If the accused discloses the motive, then it becomes clearer.
8. Learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State has rightly relied
upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bahal Singh Vs.
State of Haryana {AIR 1976 S.C. 2032}, Dudh Nath Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1981
CRI. L.J. SC 618) and Jarnail Singh and another Vs. State of Haryana {1993 CRI.
L.J. 1656 (SC)}.
9
9. In view of the aforesaid decisions, even if the motive could not be
established by the prosecution, but, if there is evidence given by the eye witness,
which is corroborated by the dispositions of other prosecution witnesses as well as
by the medical evidence, it is not fatal for the prosecution. To establish the motive
by the prosecution is not sine qua none, when the case of the prosecution is based
upon the deposition of the eye witness or the injured eye witness, supported or
corroborated by the depositions of other prosecution witnesses as well as by the
medical evidence. Motive is within the exclusive knowledge and domain of the
accused.
10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid evidences on record, the prosecution
has established beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant-accused has
committed murder of Budhni Devi. We, therefore, hold that there is no error in
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 27th May,
2000, passed by the trial court, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, as aforesaid.
11. There is no substance in this appeal. Hence, the same is hereby
dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence
dated 27th May, 2000, passed by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 90 of 1994, is
hereby affirmed.
(D.N. Patel, J.)
(R.R. Prasad, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 1st of September, 2009
AKT-Ravi /N.A.F.R.