{"id":41332,"date":"2009-12-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-12-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009"},"modified":"2016-11-01T22:36:17","modified_gmt":"2016-11-01T17:06:17","slug":"samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","title":{"rendered":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court<\/div>\n
Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009<\/div>\n
                                          1\n\n\n\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 632 of 2005\n                                     with\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1131 of 2007\n                                     with\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 902 of 2005\n                                     with\n                       CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 224 of 2005\n                                    ----\n\n                Against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of\n          sentence dated 23.12.2004 and 24.12.2004 respectively passed in\n          Sessions Case No. 84 of 2002 by Shri Ashok Kumar Chand, 1st\n          Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka.\n                                          ----\n          Seth Murmu           ....   ....    Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 632\/2005)\n          1. Samuel Murmu\n          2. Kinu Murmu   ....        ....    Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 1131\/2007)\n          Ranjan Murmu         ....   ....    Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 902\/2005)\n          Albin Murmu          ....   ....    Appellant (in Cr.A. No. 224\/2005)\n                                    Versus\n          The State of Jharkhand ....       ....     Respondent (in all cases)\n                                          ....\n          For the Appellant : Mr. Dilip Kumar Prasad, Advocate.\n          For the State     : Mr. A.B. Mahato, A.P.P.\n                                         ....\n\n                                    PRESENT\n\n                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.C.S. RAWAT\n                THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR\n                                          ....\n\n            C.A.V. ON: 11.12.2009                    Delivered On:     19\/ 12\/2009\n\n                                          ....\nPrashant Kumar, J:     The aforesaid four criminal appeals arose from the\n          common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence,\n          therefore, they are heard together and being disposed of by this\n          common judgment.\n          2.           The appellants Kinu Murmu, Albin Murmu, Samuel\n          Murmu, Ranjan Murmu and Seth Murmu challenged the judgment of\n          conviction   dated    23.12.2004     and   order   of   sentence   dated\n          24.12.2004<\/pre>\n
 passed by 1st       Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in
\n          Sessions Case No. 84 of 2002 whereby and whereunder they have
\n          been convicted under sections 302\/149 of the IPC and also under
\n          Section 148 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for
\n                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
life and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000\/- each for the offence under Section
\n302\/149 I.P.C., however, no sentence has been passed under
\nSection 148 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
3.          The case of the prosecution in brief as per the fardbeyan
\nof P.W. 8, Snehlata Marandi is that on 26.10.2001 at about 6:00
\na.m. in the morning her husband Parmeshwar Murmu (deceased),
\nbrother-in-law Mishil Murmu (deceased) and son Philip Murmu
\n(deceased) were ploughing their land. It is stated that there was a
\nlitigation in between informant’s husband and Ranjan Murmu with
\nrespect to same land, which was decreed in favour of informant’s
\nhusband. It is then alleged that while the deceased persons were
\nploughing the land Ranjan Murmu, Seth Murmu, Samuel Murmu,
\nKinu Murmu and Albin Murmu arrived there along with others armed
\nwith sword, bows and arrows, iron rod, lathi etc. and forbid the
\ndeceased persons from ploughing the land. It is further alleged that
\non refusal of deceased, the aforesaid accused persons assaulted
\nthe three deceased with sword, bows and arrows, iron rod and lathi,
\ndue to that they died. It is further alleged that appellant Kinu Murmu
\nassaulted informant with sword due to that she received injury on
\nher head and hand. Thereafter, informant along with her daughter
\nKaresha Murmu went to the Dumka Sadar Hospital where she
\nreceived treatment. It appears that in the Hospital itself her
\nfardbeyan was recorded.\n<\/p>\n
4.            On the basis of aforesaid fardbeyan, police instituted
\nGopikandar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2001 dated 26.10.2001 under
\nSections 147, 148, 149, 324, 326, 307\/302 of the IPC and took up
\ninvestigation. After completing the investigation, police submitted
\ncharge sheet against the appellants and five others namely Guntish
\nMurmu, Paltan Murmu, Misil Murmu, Matru Murmu and Sujan
\nMurmu. On the basis of said charge sheet learned CJM, Dumka
\ntook cognizance of the offence and committed the case to the court
\nof Sessions as the offence under sections 302 and 307 of the IPC
\nare exclusively triable by the court of Sessions.\n<\/p>\n
5.           After commitment, the case was transferred in the file of
\n2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka for trial, who vide order dated
\n11.06.2002 framed the charges against the appellants and five other
\naccused persons (named above) under Sections 302, 148 and 149
\n                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
of the I.P.C. The accused Kinu Murmu was also charged under
\nSections 307 and 226 of the I.P.C. for attempting to commit murder
\nof Snehlata Marandi. It further appears that the said charges were
\nread over and explained to the appellants and other accused
\npersons, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.\n<\/p>\n
6.           Thereafter, the prosecution had examined altogether 15
\nwitnesses in support of its case. The prosecution had also brought
\non record the three Post-mortem Reports (Ext. 1, 2 & 4), the Injury
\nReport of Snehlata Marandi (Ext. 6), Fardbeyan (Ext.8), Formal
\nF.I.R. (Ext. 9), Map (Ext. 10), Seizure lists ( Ext. 11 series and Ext.\n<\/p>\n
10), Inquest Report (Ext. 7 series).\n<\/p>\n
7.           After the close of the case of prosecution, the statement
\nof appellants and other accused persons recorded under section
\n313 of the Cr.P.C. in which their defence is of total denial and false
\nimplication. Appellant Seth Murmu had further taken a defence that
\non the date of occurrence, he was admitted in Murarai Primary
\nHeath Center in the district of Birbhum (W.B.), therefore, he was not
\npresent at the place of occurrence. It further appears that the
\ndefence has also examined two witnesses in support of its case.
\nThe defence also brought on record Ext. A & B – the F.I.R. and
\nfardbeyan of Gopikandar P.S. Case No. 20 of 2001; Ext.-C series –
\nthe medical certificate, prescription and discharge certificate of Seth
\nMurmu; Ext. D series – Injury report of Shyamlal Murmu and Sarju
\nMurmu; Ext.-E – certified copy of order in Criminal Miscellaneous
\nCase No. 727 of 1995 dated 07.09.1995; Ext. F – certified copy of
\norder dated 20.01.1997 in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 879 of
\n1996; Ext. G – certified copy of Jamabandi Parcha of Jamabandi No.\n<\/p>\n
4.\n<\/p>\n
8.           After considering the evidences available on record,
\nlearned court below convicted the appellants under Sections
\n302\/149 I.P.C. as also under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and
\nsentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence
\nunder Sections 302\/149 of the I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 5000\/-
\neach for the offence under Sections 302\/149 of the I.P.C.            No
\nseparate sentence has been awarded under Section 148 of the
\nI.P.C. However, impugned judgment reveals that the appellant Kinu
\nMurmu neither acquitted nor convicted under Sections 307\/326 of
\n                                4<\/span><\/p>\n
the I.P.C. It further appears that other co-accused namely Guntish
\nMurmu, Paltan Murmu, Misil Murmu, Matru Murmu and Sujan
\nMurmu were acquitted from the charges leveled against them. The
\npresent appeals filed by the appellants against their conviction and
\nsentence as stated above.\n<\/p>\n
9.          While assailing the judgment of learned court below, Sri
\nDilip Kumar Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants submitted
\nthat admittedly there is enmity between the parties. He further
\nsubmitted that in the instant case the so-called eye witnesses are
\nclosely related to the deceased. It is submitted that P.W.-5, Palian
\nTudu is the wife of deceased Mishil Murmu, P.W.-8 Snehlata
\nMarandi is the informant and wife of deceased Parmeshwar Murmu,
\nP.W.-9 Karesha Murmu is the daughter of deceased Parmeshwar
\nMurmu, P.W.-3 Birju Lal Murmu is brother-in-law (sadhu) of
\ndeceased Parmeshwar Murmu. It is submitted that there is no other
\nindependent witness to support the case of prosecution. It is
\nsubmitted that there are contradictions in the statements of the eye
\nwitnesses. P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 contradicted themselves with regard
\nto the weapon carried by the accused persons, which goes to show
\nthat they had not seen the occurrence. Accordingly, it is submitted
\nthat it is not safe to convict the appellants on the basis of their
\ntestimonies without any corroboration from independent sources. It
\nis further submitted that learned court below had not accepted the
\nplea of alibi of appellant Seth Murmu merely on presumption that
\nthe certificate was procured by him only for his defence.        It is
\nsubmitted that the said presumption and\/or finding is based on no
\nevidence, therefore, the same cannot be sustained by this Court. It
\nis submitted that in view of the aforesaid inherent illegality and\/or
\nirregularity in the impugned judgment, the same is liable to be set
\naside in these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
10.         On the other hand, learned Additional P.P. Sri A.B.
\nMahato, submits that enmity is double edged weapon which cuts
\nboth ways. It is submitted that in the instant case the motive of the
\noccurrence is the enmity between the parties in relation to the land
\nin question. It is further submitted that only because the witnesses
\nare closely related to deceased persons and the two family have
\ninimical relation, evidence of witnesses cannot be discarded. The
\n                                 5<\/span><\/p>\n
law only demands that their evidences be scrutinized more
\ncautiously and carefully. It is submitted that on careful scrutiny of
\nevidence of P.W.-5, P.W.-8 and P.W. 9, it is clear that their
\nevidences are consistent, cogent and clear with respect to the place
\nof occurrence and manner of occurrence. It is further submitted that
\nthe contradictions shown by the learned counsel for the appellants
\nis minor and trifling in nature which bound to occur in the
\ntestimonies of witnesses due to lapse of time. It is submitted that all
\nthe witnesses belongs to the community of scheduled tribes and
\nthey have been examined after two years of the occurrence. Thus,
\nsuch contradictions are natural.    Therefore, on the basis of said
\ncontradictions, their evidences cannot be thrown over board. It is
\nfurther submitted that so far the plea of alibi is concerned, the
\nlearned court below had rightly rejected the evidence of D.W.-1. It
\nis submitted that there is nothing on record to show that appellant
\nSeth Murmu is residing at Village-Murarai in the district of Birbhum
\n(W.B.). Therefore, under what circumstances, he went to Murarai
\nPrimary Heath Center for treatment of loose motion and vomiting,
\nhas not been explained by defence. It is further submitted that even
\nin the appeal filed to this Court the appellant has not mentioned that
\nhe temporarily reside at Murarai. He has given his address in the
\nmemo of appeal as resident of          village Ranga Mission, P.S.-
\nGopikanda, District-Dumka. This shows that the appellant has
\nprocured ‘Ext.-C’ series only to create his defence. Accordingly, it is
\nsubmitted that there is no merit in these appeals and therefore, they
\nare liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
11.          Having heard the submission, we have gone through
\nthe record of the case and carefully scrutinized the evidences
\navailable on record. In the instant case, the homicidal death of
\ndeceased Parmeshwar Murmu, Mishil Murmu and Philip Murmu,
\nhas not been denied by the appellants. Moreover, the prosecution
\nhas been able to prove the same from the evidences of P.W.-1,
\nP.W.-2 and P.W.-4, the doctors who conducted post-mortem
\nexamination on the dead body of Parmeshwar Murmu, Mishil
\nMurmu and Philip Murmu respectively.\n<\/p>\n
      On the dead body of deceased Parmeshwar Murmu P.W.-1
\nDr. Anant Kumar Jha had found the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
                                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
      (I)     Two incised wound 2\" x 1\/2\" x bone deep.\n      (ii)    2 1\/2\" x 1\/2\" x bone deep over the occipital region of the\n<\/pre>\n
              scalp. On dissection there was fracture of the occipital
\n              bone extending up to left parietal bone.           On further
\n              dissection brain and meninges found lacerated and
\n              collection of blood found inside the cranium.\n<\/p>\n
      In the opinion of doctor the cause of death was hemorrhage
\nand shock, as a result of injury mentioned above, which is sufficient
\nto cause death.\n<\/p>\n
              P.W.-2 Dr. Debashish Rakshit had found the following
\ninjuries on the dead body of deceased Philip Murmu:\n<\/p>\n
      (I)     Sharp cut wound over the part of occipital region of
\n              scalp size 2″ x 1\/2″ x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)    Sharp cut wound over left side of frontal bone size 1″ x
\n              1\/2″ x bone deep.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)   Diffuse swelling over left side of parietal bone. On
\n              further dissection fracture of left parietal bone found.
\n              Further dissection reveals blood clots inside cranial
\n              cavity and brain matter and meninges found lacerated.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In the opinion of doctor the death was due to hemorrhage and
\nshock, as a result of injury no. 3 which is sufficient to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
              P.W.-4 Dr. Sita Ram Sah had found following injuries
\non the dead body of deceased Mishil Murmu:\n<\/p>\n
      (i)     Incised wound over middle part of scalp 3″ x 2″ x deep
\n              to bone and other is 2″ x 1″ x deep to bone over
\n              occipital   region.       On   dissection   of   both   wound,
\n              underneath bones were fractured. Underneath brain
\n              and membrane was lacerated and big hemorrhage was
\n              there in cranial cavity.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (ii)    Swelling whole of right side of chest. On dissection
\n              there was fracture of 4th to 7th ribs. On further dissection
\n              underneathy plura and lungs was lacerated and blood
\n              clots found in plural cavity right.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      (iii)   An arrow was found over left forearm piercing skin,
\n              muscles and other tissues.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
      In his opinion, the death of deceased Mishil Murmu caused
\ndue to shock and hemorrhage, as a result of injury no.1 & 2.\n<\/p>\n
                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
                Thus, from perusal of aforesaid evidences of P.W.-1,
\nP.W.-2 and P.W.-4, I find that the prosecution has been able to
\nprove that the aforesaid three deceased persons died due to
\ninjuries sustained by them.\n<\/p>\n
12.             Now the question remain to be decided in this case as
\nto whether these appellants have any hand in the commission of
\nmurder of three deceased persons ? This brings me to consider the
\nother evidences available on record.\n<\/p>\n
                P.W. 3 Birjulal Murmu, is a co-viilager who happens to
\nbe the sadhu (brother-in-law) of deceased Parmeshwar Murmu. He
\nstated that while he was going to the place of occurrence after
\nreceiving information of murder, he saw appellant-Ranjan Murmu,
\nhis son and nephew coming from that side. He is hearsay on the
\npoint of manner of occurrence. He has proved his signature on the
\nseizure list.\n<\/p>\n
                P.W.-5, Palian Tudu, is the wife of deceased Mishil
\nMurmu. She deposed that at the time of occurrence she was in her
\nhouse.    However, after hearing hulla, she went to the place of
\noccurrence. She further deposed that on being exhorted by Ranjan
\nMurmu, the appellants Seth Murmu, Samuel Murmu and Albin
\nMurmu killed deceased persons, whereas Kinu Murmu assaulted
\nSnehlata Marandi with sword and iron rod due to that she received
\ninjury on her head and hand.           She further deposed that the
\naforesaid occurrence took place because of land dispute.\n<\/p>\n
       P.W.-6 Salvanus Marandi and P.W.-7 Katik Tudu are the
\nseizure list witnesses. They are hearsay on the point of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
                P.W.-8, Snehlata Marandi, is the informant of this case.
\nShe is an injured witness. She has also stated that on the date of
\noccurrence in the morning she was present in her field. She states
\nthat appellant Ranjan Murmu, Seth Murmu, Albin Murmu, Samuel
\nMurmu, Kinu Murmu, Sujan Murmu, Paltan Murmu came at the
\nplace of occurrence variously armed.           She further states that
\nRanjan, Samuel, Kinu, Albin were armed with sword whereas rest
\nperson armed with bows and arrows.             She further states that
\naccused persons forbid Parmeshwar Murmu, Mishil Murmu and
\nPhilip Murmu from ploughing the land and thereafter they killed
\nMishil Murmu, Philip Murmu and Parmeshwar Murmu.               She had
\n                                   8<\/span><\/p>\n
also been assaulted and she received injury on her head. She
\nfurther deposed that the aforesaid occurrence took place because
\nof land dispute.\n<\/p>\n
               P.W.-9, Karesha Murmu is the daughter of deceased
\nParmeshwar Murmu. She has also deposed that after hearing hulla,
\nshe went to the place of occurrence and saw that Ranjan Murmu,
\nSeth Murmu, Samuel Murmu, Kinu Murmu, Albin Murmu and others
\nhad killed her father Parmeshwar Murmu, elder brother Philip
\nMurmu and uncle Mishil Murmu. She states that at that time all the
\naccused persons were armed with sword and bows and arrows.\n<\/p>\n
               P.W.-10 is the formal witness. P.W.-11 and P.W.-13
\nhave been declared hostile as they have not supported the case of
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
               P.W.-12 is the Doctor who examined the injuries on the
\nperson of Snehlata Marandi and proved the injury report which is
\n(Ext.-6).\n<\/p>\n
               P.W.-14 is the I.O. and P.W.-15 is a formal witness who
\nbrought and proved the material exhibits in the court.\n<\/p>\n
13.            Thus, on careful examination of evidences adduced on
\nbehalf of prosecution, I find that the entire case of prosecution rest
\non the evidences of P.W.-5, P.W. 8 and P.W.-9 who claimed
\nthemselves to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. It is an admitted
\nposition that there is enmity between the parties with respect to the
\nland where the occurrence took place.         It is also an admitted
\nposition that aforesaid three witnesses are closely related to
\ndeceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
14.            It has been held by their lordships of Supreme Court in
\nMaranadu vs. State by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu reported
\nin 2009 (1) JLJ SC 4 that :\n<\/p>\n
                     “7. Merely because the eye-witnesses are family
\n                     members their evidence cannot per se be
\n                     discarded.       When   there   is   allegation   of
\n                     interestedness, the same has to be established.
\n                     Mere statement that being relatives of the
\n                     deceased they are likely to falsely implicate the
\n                     accused cannot be a ground to discard the
\n                     evidence which is otherwise cogent and credible.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                 9<\/span><\/p>\n
                   We shall also deal with the contention regarding
\n                   interestedness of the witnesses for furthering
\n                   prosecution version. Relationship is not a factor
\n                   to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often
\n                   than not that a relation would not conceal actual
\n                   culprit and make allegations against an innocent
\n                   person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false
\n                   implication is made. In such cases, the court has
\n                   to adopt a careful approach and analyse
\n                   evidence to find out whether it is cogent and
\n                   credible.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
             Thus, in view of the aforesaid judgment of their
\nlordships of Supreme Court – the evidence of eye witnesses who
\nare family members cannot be discarded merely on the ground of
\ninterestedness.     The law requires that their evidences be
\napproached and analysed carefully and if it appears to the court that
\ntheir evidences are cogent and credible then it is lawful for the court
\nto base conviction on the basis of their evidences.\n<\/p>\n
15.          In the instant case on careful scrutiny of evidence of
\nP.W.-5, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9, I find that they have been cross-
\nexamined by the defence at length but the defence had elicited
\nnothing to impeach their credibility. They remained consistent with
\nregard to the place of occurrence and manner of occurrence.
\nP.W.-5 had also stated that when she reached to the place of
\noccurrence, she also found some injuries on the person of accused.
\nThe aforesaid version of P.W.-5 is also consistent with the defence
\nversion as mentioned in Ext.-A. It is further relevant to mention that
\nfrom perusal of Ext.-A I find that defence has also admitted that
\nP.W.-8 Snehlata Marandi (wife of Parmeshwar Murmu) was present
\nat the place of occurrence. The injury report (Ext.-6) also
\ncorroborates the statement of P.W.-8 that she received injuries at
\nthe time of occurrence.     The statements of P.W.-5, P.W.-8 and
\nP.W.-9 further find corroboration from the evidence of P.W.-3 who
\ncategorically stated that while he was going to the place of
\noccurrence, after receiving information of murder, he saw that
\nappellant Ranjan, his son and nephew were coming.            There is
\n                                 10<\/span><\/p>\n
absolutely no cross examination by the defence in this respect.
\nThus, the aforesaid statement of P.W.-3 remained intact, which also
\ncorroborates the statements of P.W.-5, P.W.-8 and P.W.-9. The
\npostmortem reports and the inquest reports also supports the
\nstatements of aforesaid three eye witnesses. The physical finding of
\nthe I.O. as well as seizure of weapons from the house of appellants
\nwhich were stained with blood also lent support to the evidences of
\naforesaid eye witnesses.    The contradictions pointed out in the
\nevidences of P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 by learned counsel for the
\nappellants with regard to the weapon possessed by the appellants,
\nin my view, are minor and trifling in nature, which bound to occur in
\ntheir evidences. It is relevant to mention that the occurrence took
\nplace on 26.10.2001 and the witnesses were examined in the year
\n2003. It is also relevant to mention that apart from the five
\nappellants, other accused persons belong to other villages are also
\nparticipated in the commission of the present crime. Under the said
\ncircumstance, after the lapse of time, it may be possible that some
\ncontradictions may arose in the statements of witnesses with
\nrespect of holding of weapons by different accused persons. Thus,
\nin my view, the said contradictions pointed out by the learned
\ncounsel for the appellants have no bearing on the case of
\nprosecution. Thus, on careful scrutiny of the evidences of P.W.-5,
\nP.W.-8 and P.W.-9, I find that their evidence is consistent, cogent
\nand clear with respect to manner of occurrence which found full
\ncorroboration in material particulars from other evidence available
\non record. Hence, I am of the definite view that their evidence
\ncannot be thrown over board only on the ground that they are close
\nrelative of deceased persons.\n<\/p>\n
16.         Now coming to the plea of alibi taken by appellant Seth
\nMurmu, it is worth mentioning that in the memo of appeal he stated
\nthat he is resident of village Ranga Mission P.S.- Gopikandar,
\nDistrict-Dumka.    He has not mentioned that at the time of
\noccurrence he was residing at Murarai. There is nothing on record
\nto show as to why he went to Murarai Primary Health Centre for
\ntreatment of loose motion and vomiting, when Sadar Hospital at
\nDumka is available. Moreover, from perusal of Ext-C\/1 & C\/2, it
\nappears that the prescription and discharge certificate has been
\n                                 11<\/span><\/p>\n
issued in favour of Seth Murmu C\/o Alizabeth Tudu, resident of
\nMurarai Hospital Quarter, Murarai, Birbhum (W.B.). However, from
\npersual of Ext.-C, it appears that DW-1 had issued certificate on
\n08.11.2001 in which he has introduced Seth Murmu, S\/o Ranjan
\nMurmu of Village Ranga Mission, P.S. Gopikandar, District-Dumka.
\nIt is relevant to mention that DW-1 had deposed that the said Seth
\nMurmu was treated by Dr. Sadir Bhattacharya.            Under the said
\ncircumstance when Ext-C\/1 & C\/2 shows that it was issued in favour
\nof Seth Murmu C\/o Elizabeth and then how the name of Ranjan
\nMurmu has been introduced has not been explained by DW-1 who
\nis not the attending doctor of aforesaid Seth Murmu. This
\ncircumstance creates a doubt that Ext.-C (certificate issued by
\nDW-1) has been procured by the defence only to create a plea of
\nalibi. In this view of the matter, I find that plea of alibi of appellant
\nSeth Murmu has not been proved by the defence beyond the
\nshadow of all reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n
17.          In view of the fact that the defence had not denied the
\noccurrence as well as the presence of P.W.-8 at the place of
\noccurrence (in view of Ext.-A) and also taking into account that the
\nevidences of P.W.-5, P.W. 8 and P.W.-9, are consistent, cogent and
\nclear on the point of occurrence, which find corroboration from the
\nevidences of P.W.-3, Doctors P.W.-1, P.W.-2 and P.W.-4 and
\nP.W.-10 and also the I.O., I find that the prosecution has been able
\nto prove the charges leveled against the accused persons beyond
\nthe shadow of all reasonable doubts. Therefore, I find no reason to
\ndisagree with the conclusion of the court below that the appellants
\nhad formed an unlawful assembly with lethal weapon and in
\nprosecution of common object of said unlawful assembly committed
\nmurder of Parmeshwar Murmu, Missil Murmu and Philip Murmu.
\nThus, I find that they have been rightly convicted and sentenced
\nunder Sections 302\/149 & 148 of the I.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
18.          In the result, I find no merit in the appeals, the same
\nare dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
             It appears that appellant Ranjan Murmu in Cr.Appeal
\nNo. 902\/05 is on bail. Thus, his bail bond is cancelled and he is
\ndirected to surrender in the court below forthwith to carry out the
\n                                      12<\/span><\/p>\n
      sentence. The court below is also directed to take all coercive steps
\n      for his appearance.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n                                                       (Prashant Kumar, J.)\n\n\n\n      (J.C.S. Rawat, J)                                 (J.C.S. Rawat, J)\n\n\n\nJharkhand High Court, Ranchi\nDated 19 \/ 12 \/2009\nSunil\/NAFR\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Jharkhand High Court Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 632 of 2005 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 1131 of 2007 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 902 of 2005 with CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No. 224 of 2005 —- Against the impugned judgment of conviction and […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-41332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-jharkhand-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSamuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\"},\"wordCount\":3799,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Jharkhand High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\",\"name\":\"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009","datePublished":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009"},"wordCount":3799,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Jharkhand High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009","name":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-12-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-11-01T17:06:17+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/samuel-murmu-anr-vs-state-of-jharkhand-on-19-december-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Samuel Murmu & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 December, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=41332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/41332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=41332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=41332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=41332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}