Ridho Sabar vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 2985 Jhar

                                              Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014
                                  1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                   Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014
[Against the Judgment of conviction and sentenced dated
27.07.2013 passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, learned District &
Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila, in S.T. No.102 of 2009.]

     1. Ridho Sabar
     2. Budhiya Sabar                                        ...     Appellants
                                -Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                                ...     Respondent
                             ----------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH

----------

For the Appellants        : Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, Advocate
For the State             : Mr. V. K. Vashistha, A.P.P.
                                ---------
C.A.V. On 18.07.2022                      Pronounced On:03.08.2022

Heard Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. V.K. Vashistha, learned A.P.P.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.07.2013, passed by Shri Barun Kumar Mishra, in connection with Sessions Trial Case No. 102 of 2009, arising out of Dumaria P.S. Case No.23 of 2008, corresponding to G.R. Case No.333 of 2008, whereby and wherein, the learned District & Sessions Judge-I, Ghatsila, held the appellants, namely Ridho Sabar and Budhiya Sabar, guilty of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for committing murder of the deceased Rengo Sabar and thereby, sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of six months.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Chandra Sabar, alleging therein that on 16.08.2008 at about 08:00 P.M. he came to know that his father Rengo Sabar was murdered by the appellants namely, Ridho Sabar and Budhiya Sabar. When the informant went to the place of occurrence, he saw the dead body of his father. There were injuries on his head and other parts of the body.

4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellants for the offence under sections Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014

302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. After cognizance, this case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned A.C.J.M., Ghatsila, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellants on 15.05.2009 for the offence under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The content of the charge was read over and explained to them in Hindi, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.

7. Baka Sabar (P.W.1) is an eye witness. He has supported the prosecution case.

Tumba Sabar (P.W.2) is a witness of inquest.

Jugo Sabar (P.W.3) is a hearsay witness.

Goma Sabar (P.W.4) is a hearsay witness.

Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) is an eye witness and he has supported the prosecution case.

Kanu Ram Hansda (P.W.6) is also a hearsay witness. Chandra Sabar (P.W.7) is the informant of this case. He is also a hearsay witness. He has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1. He has identified the appellants in the dock.

Dr. Arjun Soren (P.W.8) had performed the postmortem of the deceased. He had also proved the postmortem report, which is Ext.-2.

Sunil Topno (P.W.-9) is the Investigating Officer of this case, he has proved the fardbeyan of the informant, which has been marked as Ext.-3. He has also proved the seizure list relating to recovery of iron rod and stones. Formal F.I.R has been proved by him which is Ext.-5. He has also proved the place of occurrence.

8. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Defence is general denial of the occurrence and false implication.

9. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, available on record, learned court below held the appellants guilty and sentenced them accordingly.

10 Mrs. Bakshi Bibha, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the eye witnesses are chance witnesses and as such their testimony cannot be relied upon. It was also submitted that there are vital Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014

contradictions in the statements of the witnesses on the point of manner of occurrence. On these grounds, it was prayed that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Court below be set aside.

11. Mr. V. K. Vashistha, learned counsel for the State has submitted that Baka Sabar (P.W.1) and Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) are eye witnesses. They have corroborated each other on the point that the appellants had assaulted the deceased Rengo Sabar due to which he succumbed to his injuries. He has further submitted that ocular account of prosecution witnesses is corroborated by medical evidence. As such, findings of the learned court below does not suffer from any infirmity. Accordingly, it was prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

12. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.

In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be ascertained:-

(i) whether the deceased Rengo Sabar died a homicidal death ?

(ii) whether the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses can be relied upon ?

13. According to the prosecution, the deceased Rengo Sabar died a homicidal death. On this point, prosecution has led both oral and documentary evidence.

Baka Sabar ( P.W.-1) has stated that the deceased, Rengo Sabar had sustained injuries on his rib cage and head. Tumba Sabar (P.W.-2) is the inquest witness. He saw injuries on the rib cage and head of the deceased. According to Jugo Sabar (P.W.3) there were injuries on the head and near the waist of the deceased. (P.W.-4) Goma Sabar, saw injuries on the head of the deceased and (P.W.-5) Pogo Sabar, has also stated that there were injuries on the head and rib cage of the deceased.

14. From perusal of the oral testimony of Dr. Arjun Soren (P.W.8), it transpires that this witness had performed the postmortem on the dead body of the deceased, Rengo Sabar, and found the following injuries on person of the deceased:-

(i) Fracture of left frontal bone of skull 2"x 1" x 1/2".

(ii) Fracture of left ribs at mid axillary line.

(iii) Rupture of left lung.

(iv) Lacerated wound 2" lateral to lumber spine 1½"x1" 1/2".

According to this witness, the aforesaid injuries were antemortem in nature Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014

and were caused by hard and blunt substance. Death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by above mentioned injuries.

15. From perusal of the postmortem report (Ext.-2), it transpires that the oral testimony of Dr. Arjun Soren (P.W.-8) substantiates his finding in the postmortem report(Ext.-2).

16. From aforesaid oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is apparent that the deceased died due to injuries sustained by him on his head and rib cage, which was caused by hard and blunt substance. Accordingly, we come to find that deceased Rengo Sabar died a homicidal death.

17. According to the prosecution case the appellants Budhiya Sabar had inflicted rod blow on the person of the deceased, while Ridho Sabar had assaulted him by stone. Rengo Sabar died due to the injuries inflicted by the appellants.

Baka Sabar (P.W.1) is an eye witness. He has stated that on "hulla," he came out side his house and saw Budhiya Sabar assaulting the deceased by rod and Ridho Sabar assaulting him by a stone. Rengo Sabar sustained injuries on his head due to which he succumbed to his injuries. According to the Investigating Officer, Sunil Topno (P.W.-9), the place of occurrence is out side the house of Baka Sabar (P.W.1).

Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) has stated on "hulla," he went near the house of Baka Sabar and saw the appellants assaulting the deceased by rod and stone. Rango Sabar (deceased) succumbed to his injuries. In his cross-examination he has stated that his house is about 500 m. from the place of occurrence. When he reached there, he saw that both the appellants were assaulting the deceased.

Both, Baka Sabar (P.W.1) and Pogo Sabar (P.W.-5) are eye witnesses. They have been cross-examined at length. They have been consistent on the point of place of occurrence, which is in front of the house of Baka Sabar (P.W.1). They have corroborated each other on the point of manner of occurrence, that the appellants assaulted the deceased by rod and stone, due to which the deceased succumbed to his injuries.

18. Sunil Topno (P.W.-9) has stated that he seized a rod and a stone from the place of occurrence and his oral testimony on this point is corroborated by the seizure list, which is Ext.-4. From perusal of the seizure list Ext.-4, it appears that the Investigating Officer had recovered a rod and a stone lying Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 62 of 2014

near the dead body of Rengo Sabar.

19. Houses of both Baka Sabar (P.W.1) and Pogo Sabar (P.W.5) are near the place of occurrence. As such their presence at the place of occurrence at the time of occurrence cannot be doubted. They are natural witnesses. They have withstood the test of cross examination. Their statements are quite reliable and can be very well read in evidence.

20. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to prove that the appellants had committed murder of the deceased Rengo Sabar by assaulting him by a rod and stone.

21. We do not find any infirmity in the judgement of learned court below in holding the appellants guilty.

22. This appeal is dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi.

Dated:-03.08.2022 Rohit/ NAFR