Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 330 of 2002
---
Against the judgment of conviction dated 24.5.2002 and order of
sentence dated 27.5.2002 passed by Sri Jai Govind Singh
Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions
Trial No.352 of 1998 / 24 of 1999.
Ram Chandra Manjhi ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
---
For the Appellant : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Ravi Prakash, A.P.P.
---
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. K. MERATHIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
---
R. K. MERATHIA, &
D. N. UPADHYAY, JJ This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated
7.9.2002
and sentence dated 24.5.2002 and order of sentence dated
27.5.2002 passed by Sri Jai Govind Singh Learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Bermo at Tenughat in Sessions Trial No. 352 of
1998/ 24 of 1999 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C.
and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for life.
2. The prosecution case in short is that on 3.7.1998 at about 5 PM,
when Lobdhan Manjhi-the informant (PW – 6) and his mother had gone
to forest along with her Jethi Budhni Devi (PW-1) with oxen and she-
goats and were returning to home from forest in the evening, the
Appellant Ram Chandra Manjhi was waiting their arrival and when
Bhikhni Devi reached near, he attacked on her by repeated tangi blows
on the neck resulting in her death at the spot.
3. It is alleged that the appellant used to call the deceased as ‘Dian’
under the impression that she had killed his wife and his family
members were suffering from illness.
4. Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant assailed
the impugned judgment on several grounds. He submitted that there
are vital discrepancies in the evidences and that the medical evidence
does not corroborate the alleged time of occurrence. It is further
submitted that the I.O. has not been examined in this case and the
place of occurrence has not been clearly established.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Ravi Prakash, learned counsel for the
State supported the impugned judgment.
-2-
6. PW – 1 Budhni Devi is the eyewitness who was accompanying
the deceased. There is no reason to disbelieve her. The medical
evidence fully corroborates the evidence of eyewitness. Doctor found
sharp cutting injury behind left pinna and found that the whole neck
was cut separating the head of the body. The Doctor opined that the
injuries were caused by sharp and hard weapon like Tangi. The
difference in the time of alleged occurrence as per the medical
evidence is of few hours. In any event, only on the basis of opinion of
the doctor, the ocular evidence cannot be brushed aside. The minor
discrepancies on the place of occurrence and time of occurrence is of
no help the appellant. Moreover, from the evidences, the place of
occurrence has been established. The non-examination of the I.O. has
not prejudiced the case of the appellant.
7. After hearing both the parties and going through the records
carefully, in our opinion, no grounds are made out for interference in
the impugned judgment. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
(R. K. Merathia, J.)
(D. N. Upadhyay, J)
Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi
The 4th day of July 2011.
R.Kumar/NAFR/