JUDGMENT
Lakshman Uraon, J.
1. This Criminal Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 19th January. 1993, passed by Sri Tarkeshwar Prasad, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamshedpur, in Sessions Trial No. 510 of 1990, convicting both the appellants under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as also under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years under Section 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, it was ordered that both the sentences would run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case, as per the fardbeyan of the informant Goura Murmu (PW 9), is that she along with Sadho Muni Hansda (PW 10) and her mother Maiya Murmu (deceased) had gone to Kalajhore Forest to collect fire-woods on 25.8.1990 at 12 noon. While they were collecting fire woods and both Coura Murmu (PW 9) and Sadho Muni Hansda (PW 10) were away at a distance of 10 to 12 cubits from Maiya Murmu (mother of the informant), they saw that their villagers Kandra Murmu and his son Ishwar Murmu, having Kulhari (axe) in their hands came there at about 1.00 p.m. and saw Maiya Murmu. They uttered that they met the old lady and they would cut her. Both of them caught hold of Maiya Murmu. which was seen by the informant and Sadho Muni Hansda from a distance of 10 to 12 cubits where they had concealed themselves out of fear. They saw that appellant Kandra Murmu caught hold of her (informant’s mother) and appellant Ishwar Murmu cut the head of Maiya Murmu (mother of informant) with Kulhari (axe) and they took away the head and left the place. When the accused left the place, then both the informant and Sadho Muni Hansda went to the village and informed Vinod Murmu (PW 5), Hengo Hansda (PW 6), Kalia Hembram (PW 4), Sunil Murmu (PW 7). Sitan Bhumij (PW 8) and other about the occurrence. These villagers went to the Forest and saw the beheaded body of Maiya Murmu. The villagers also identified the dead body by the cloths worn by the deceased Maiya Murmu. Throughout the night, they guarded the dead-body. Thereafter, they informed the Vilkage-Chowkidar Sitan Bhumij (PW 8). The Village Chowkidar asked them to inform the police. Then the informant went to the Police Station along with other villagers where her statement was recorded on which she signed and it was also signed by Chunnu Murmu (PW 2).
3. Both the appellants denied the charges, framed against them under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code in their examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is simple denial of their involvement in causing the murder of Maiya Murmu with Kulhari (axe).
The simple defence is that they are innocent and have not committed the murder of Maiya Murmu.
4. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges, framed against the accused persons, examined altogether twelve witnesses. After considering the evidences, available on record, the learned Court below found both the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them, as mentioned above in paragraph No. 1.
5. The point for consideration is as to whether the order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below against both the appellants, for the charges stated above, can be sustained.
6. The alleged occurrence took place in Kalajhore Jungal (forest), which is situated 15 Kms. away from Village-Rajabasa, Police Station Ghatshila, East Singhbhum. As per the first Information Report, the informant (PW 9) had gone to the Jungal (forest) to collect fire woods along with her mother Maiya Murmu, since deceased, and the Village Didi (elder sister) Sadho Mani Hansda (PW 10). In the Jungal (forest) all the three females were collecting fire woods hither and thither. PWs 9 & 10 were away at a distance of 10 to 12 cubits from Maiya Murmu, mother of the informant. Both the appellants had also gone to the Jungal (forest) on that very day and met Maiya Murmu at about 1.00 p.m. They found a good opportunity to cause murder of that old lady and uttered that they would cut her. Thereafter, appellant Kandra Murmu caught hold of Maiya Murmu and then his son Ishwar Murmu cut her head with Kulhari (axe). Thereafter, both the appellants left the place of occurrence with the head of Maiya Murmu.
7. Thus, in this particular case, the place of occurrence is the Jungal Kalajhore (15 Kms. away from Village-Rajabasa). There was no other witness available to see the alleged occurrence. The only witnesses were the informant (PW 9) and her Village Didi Sadho Mani Hansda (PW 10). They are the only eye-witnesses in this case. They had come and informed the villagers. The villagers PW 1 (Arjun Murmu, PW 2 (Chunnu Murmu), PW 3 (Sangram Murmu). PW 4 (Kalia Hembram), PW 5 (Vinod Murmu) and PW 6 (Hengo Hansda) all went to the Jungal, as
informed by the informant, and saw the dead body of Maiya Murmu. They are hearsay witnesses but they have been informed by the informant and Sadho Mani Hansda regarding cutting of the head of Maiya Murmu by Ishwar Murmu, when Kandra Murmu had caught hold of her. Thereafter, both of them took away the head of Maiya Murmu. PWs. 9 and 10 have also stated that they went to the Village and informed the matter. Thus, although these witnesses are hearsay but their evidence is admissible to that extent, that they saw the dead body of Maiya Murmu and they had come to know about the assailants. PW 1 is the witness of the inquest report, prepared by the Investigation Officer. P.W. 3 (Sangram Murmu) is also a witness on the inquest report on which he has signed, which is marked as Ext. 1. PW 4 (Kalia Membram) had also gone to the Jungal to see the dead body along with the other villagers. PW 5 (Vinod Murmu) was also amongst the Villagers but he had not heard from the informant as to who caused the murder. PW 6 (Hengo Hansda) also had gone to the Jungal, as informed by the informant about the assailants, and saw the dead body of Maiya Murmu. PW 7 (Sunil Murmu) is a tendered witness.
8. PW 8 (Sitan Bhumji), who is an independent witness and Chowkidar of the Village, came to know from the informant that Kandra and Ishwar (both appellants) caught hold of the mother of informant Maiya Murmu and Ishwar Murmu cut her head and thereafter, both the appellants went away taking the head. This witness, as a Village Chowkidar. does not know regarding prior enmity in between the appellants and the deceased. PW 11 Shyamal Sarkar is a formal witness who has identified Post-mortem report in the pen and signature of Dr. Md. Hajatullah (Ext. 2). PW 12 (Shambhu Nath Rai), a formal witness, has proved the First Information Report in the pen and signature of Ram Pratap Singh, Officer-in-charge, Ghatshila Police Station (Ext. 3) and also the inquest report in the pen and signature of Ram Pratap Singh (Ext. 4).
9. Thus, the only evidence of PW 9 (Goura Murmu the informant) and PW 10 (Sadho Mani Hansda) has to be considered, as PW 9 is the daughter of the deceased whereas PW 10 Sadho Mani Hansda is a
village, independent witness, although she is elder sister of the informant, as per the village relations.
10. Both these witnesses are eye-witnesses. They have fully supported the prosecution case by stating that while they were collecting fire woods in the Jungal (forest), at about 1.00 p.m. both the appellants having Tangi (axe) in their hands met Maiya Murmu. Both the them had stated that Kandra Murmu caught hold of Maiya Murmu and laid her down and then Ishwar Murmu cut her head with Kulhari (axe) and thereafter, they left the place of occurrence, taking the head. As I have stated above that they informed the villagers, who went and saw the dead body and they also identified it, I do not find that there is any contradictory statement of the eye-witnesses, namely, PW 9 and PW 10, about the alleged occurrence and the manner in which both the appellants cut the head of Maiya Murmu in the Jungal. As such, I do not find any ground to disbelieve their evidence.
11. Learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that in the present case the Investigating Officer and doctor have not been examined. It was also submitted that only the interested witnesses have been examined and has relied upon several decisions of the Apex Court as also of the High Court, namely, AIR 1955 SC 331 (Rishideo Pande v. State of Uttar Pradesh), 1975 BBCJ 317 (Bhupat Kumar and Ors. v. The State). 1984 PLJR 441 (Damodar Dubey v. State of Bihar), 1995 (2) PLJR 64 (SC) : 1995 (2) East Cr C 69 (SC) (Prem Kumar and Anr. v State of Bihar), 1998 (1) PLJR 89 (SC) : 1997 (1) East Cr C 512 (SC) (Mahendra Rat v. Mithilesh Rai and Ors.), 2000 (3) East Cr C 1915 (SC) : 2000 Cri LJ 1537 (Punit Mandal and Ors. v. State of Bihar), 2001 (2) PLJR 494 (Satiya Kharia v. The State of Bihar) and 2000(3) PLJR 144 (SC) : 2000 (2) East Cr C 777 (Bahadur Naik v. State of Bihar).
12. In this case, as I have discussed above, the place of occurrence is Jungal Kalajhore where the villagers went and saw the dead body of Maiya Murmu and hence the place of occurrence has fully been established by the independent witnesses (villagers), although they are hearsay witnesses but their evidences can not be discarded only on this ground that they are hearsay witnesses. The
doctor, no doubt, has not been examined but a formal witness has proved the post-mortem report in the pen and signature of Dr. Md. Hajatullah (Ext. 2). Thus, it is definite that the beheaded dead body of Maiya Murmu was found when the head itself was cut and taken away by these appellants, which shows that how cruel they are in causing the murder of an old lady.
13. Appellant Kandra Murmu got her fell down caught hold of her and appellant Ishwar Murmu cut the head of Maiya Murmu and both of them took away the head of the deceased along with them. Thus, when the head itself is beheaded from the body and it was taken away, it shows the cause of death and does not require any expert’s opinion, regarding examination of the doctor to prove the cause of death or the weapons used in causing the death.
14. The witnesses PWs 9 and 10 namely. Goura Murmu and Sadho Mani Hansda, have categorically deposed that appellant Kandra Marmu laid her (Maiya Murmu) down and thereafter, his son Ishwar Murmu cut the head with Kulhari (axe), a sharp cutting weapon. Thereafter, they took away the head along with them.
15. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I find that there is nothing to disbelieve the evidence of interested witnesses even if it is said that Sarlbo Mani Hansda is also related as sister of the village. This Sadho Mani Hansda is actually related as village sister and is an independent witness, who has also corroborated the evidence of interested eye-witness, namely, the informant Goura Murmu (PW 9), daughter of deceased. The other villagers are independent witnesses, except PW 2 (Chunnu Murmu), who is the son of the deceased.
16. Thus, in absence of examination of the Investigating Officer, the doctor and independent witnesses, the prosecution can not be disbelieved, which has been fully supported by the informant herself, corroborated by Sadho Mani Hansda (PW 10) and the same has also got supported by the villagers, independent witnesses, including Chunnu Murmu.
17. In view of the above considered evidences, available on’ record, I find that there is no other conclusion to lead to me except that both the appellants are the only persons, who had met Maiya Murmu in the
Jungal and thereafter, appellant Kandra Murmu caught hold of Maiya Murmu and then his son Ishwar Murmu (appellant) cut the head of Maiya Murmu and both of them left the place of occurrence, taking the head of Maiya Murmu. This is the occurrence occurred in the Jungal and the evidences of PWs 9 and 1O have been corroborated by the other village witnesses, as discussed and considered above. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below.
18. In the result, I find and come to the conclusion that there is no merit in this Criminal Appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence, passed by the learned Court below is hereby affirmed. As appellant No. 1, namely, Kandra Murmu, is on bail, hence his bail bonds is cancelled and the learned Court below is directed to take all possible efforts to ensure his arrest, forthwith, for serving the sentence.
S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.
19. I agree.