Turam Bahanda vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3626 Jhar

                                             Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016
                                   -1-

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016
                               ----------

[Against the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 (sentence passed on 24.07.2015) passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No.231 of 2011, arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.16 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. No.171 of 2011]

Turam Bahanda ... Appellant

-Versus-

The State of Jharkhand                            ...     Respondent
                            ----------
                         PRESENT
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                               ----------
For the Appellant        : Mr. Ramit Satender, Advocate
For the State            : Ms. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P.
                               ---------
C.A.V. On 20.07.2022                     Pronounced On: 12/09/2022

Heard Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant and Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 22.07.2015 (sentence passed on 24.07.2015)

passed by Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, learned Sessions Judge, West

Singhbhum at Chaibasa in connection with Sessions Trial No.231 of

2011, arising out of Goilkera P.S. Case No.16 of 2011, corresponding to

G.R. No.171 of 2011, holding the appellant, Turam Bahanda, guilty for

the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code and

thereby, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years

along with a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the aforesaid offence and in case of

default in payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo rigorous

imprisonment of six months.

3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of Fardbeyan of

the informant, Nandi Kui, wife of the deceased, alleging therein that on Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

16.06.2011 at about 08:00 P.M, there was some altercation between her

husband namely Ganga Ram Bahanda and his brother, the appellant

Turam Bahanda. The informant tried to pacify the matter. However, the

appellant started assaulting Ganga Ram Bahanda by slaps and fists.

He has also kicked his testicle, due to which, he succumbed to his injuries

and died at the spot.

4. After investigation, the police found the occurrence to be true and

submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 341, 323, 307

and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned S.D.J.M., Porahat at

Chaibasa, after cognizance, committed the case to the Court of Sessions

on 24.07.2015, as it was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.

5. Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 302 of the

Indian Penal Code on 21.11.2012. The contents of the charge was read

over and explained to him in Hindi to which he 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. Dobro Hembrom (P.W.1) is a hostile witness.

Besra Kora (P.W.2) is a hearsay witness. He has identified his

signature on the Fardbeyan which is Exhibit-1.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava (P.W.3) has perfomed the

postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He has proved the

postmortem report which is Exhibit-2.

Sikur Bahanda (P.W.4) is the witness of the inquest. He has proved

his signature on the inquest report which is Exhibit-3.

Ram Singh Bahanda (P.W.5) is the witness of inquest. He has Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

proved his signature on the inquest report which is Exhibit-3/1.

Nandi Kui (P.W.6) is the informant of this case. She has supported

her case as narrated in the Fardbeyan. She has identified the appellant in

the dock.

Hari Pad Narsundar (P.W.7) is the Investigating Officer of this case.

He has proved the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit 1/1. He

has proved the formal FIR which is Exhibit-4. He has also proved the

inquest report which is Exhibit-3/2. According to him, the place of

occurrence happens to be in the courtyard of the house of the informant.

8. The statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defence is general denial of the

occurrence and false implication.

9. The appellant has examined Sukhmati Bahanda as D.W.1. She has

stated that on the date of occurrence, the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda

had returned home in a drunken condition. He fell on wooden logs kept

in the courtyard due to which he sustained injuries and died.

10. On the basis of the evidence both oral and documentary, learned

court below held the appellant guilty and sentenced him accordingly.

11. Mr. Ramit Satender, learned counsel for the appellant has

submitted that the learned court below has held the appellant guilty only

on the basis of the evidence of solitary eyewitness Nandi Kui (P.W.6)

who is highly interested witness. It was also submitted that the trial court

has discarded the evidence of Sukhmati Bahanda as D.W.1, who is the

sister of both the deceased and the appellant. This witness has clearly

stated that deceased had died an accidental death. Accordingly, it was

prayed that the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

the learned Court below be set aside.

12. Ms. Vandana Bharti, learned A.P.P has submitted that the informant

Nandi Kui (P.W.6) has stood the test of cross-examination. There is

nothing in her statement to doubt her veracity. On these grounds, it was

prayed that this appeal be dismissed.

13. Now, it has to be ascertained whether the prosecution has been able

to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.

In order to come to the aforesaid findings, it has to be decided:-

(i) Whether the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda died a homicidal or accidental death?

(ii) Whether the appellant Turam Bahanda had caused the homicidal death of the deceased ?

(iii) Whether the statement of Nandi Kui (P.W.6) can be relied upon?

14. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda

was assaulted by the appellant Turam Bahanda, due to which, he

sustained injuries and died at the place of occurrence. On this point, the

prosecution led both oral and documentary evidence.

Sikur Bahanda (P.W.4) and Ram Singh Bahanda (P.W.5) are the

witnesses of the inquest. Both have stated that they saw the dead body of

the deceased, Ganga Ram Bahanda.

Sikur Bahanda (P.W.4) has stated that blood was oozing from the

nose of the deceased, Ganga Ram Bahanda. There were injuries on his

neck, chest and back. It appeared that he was assaulted by slaps, fists and

danda. Both these witnesses have been cross-examined at length.

Sikur Bahanda (P.W.4) has very fairly admitted that he has not seen

the occurrence. He has stated that inquest report was prepared at the place

of occurrence.

Ram Singh Bahanda (P.W.5) in his cross-examination has stated Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

that he had signed on the inquest report at the instance of the police.

Besra Kora (P.W.2) has also stated that after the occurrence, he

went to the house of the informant and saw the dead body of the

deceased, Ganga Ram Bahanda. He saw injuries on the chest of the

deceased. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he is not the

eyewitness.

From the perusal of the inquest report (Ext.-3/2), it transpires that

the Investigating Officer has found the injuries on the neck, chest, ribs,

nose and mouth of the deceased.

15. Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava (P.W.3), had performed the

postmortem on the dead body of the deceased. He had found the

following ante-mortem injuries on his person.

External

(i) Blood and blood clot present in nose and mouth.

(ii) Bruise on upper part of chest, blackish in colour about 12" x 10".

(iii) Bruise on arm 6" x 3".

(iv) Abrasion on right side of chest- 2" x 1".

Internal Injury Fracture of 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs on left side.

Fracture of 3rd and 4th ribs on right side.

Fracture of upper part of sturnum.

Blood present in thoracic cavity.

There was laceration of right and left lungs.

Death was due to shock and haemorrhage.

On perusal of the postmortem report (Ext.2), it is evident that oral

testimony of Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava (P.W.3) regarding the injuries

found on the person of the deceased and the cause of death is

corroborated by his findings as enunciated in the postmortem report.

16. The appellant has examined Sukhmati Bahanda (D.W.1). She is the

sister of the deceased and the appellant. She has stated that about four

years ago, the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda returned home in the Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

evening in a drunken condition. He fell on the big logs kept in the

courtyard, due to which, he sustained injuries and subsequently died. In

her cross-examination, she has stated that she resides with the appellant.

It is apparent that Sukhmati Bahanda (D.W.1) has stated that the

death of the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda was accidental, who died

after he fell on logs kept in the courtyard as he was in a drunken

condition.

Hari Pad Narsundar (P.W.7) the I.O of the case has stated at

paragraph-8 of his deposition that the place of occurrence is courtyard of

the house of deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda. He has not stated that at the

time of inspection of the place of occurrence, he found wooden logs kept

there. Defence has also not tried to elicit reply from this witness at the

time of his cross examination on this point.

Dr. Santosh Kumar Srivastava (P.W.3) has not found trace of liquor

in the stomach of the deceased during the postmortem examination.

Furthermore, the deceased has sustained injuries on his mouth, upper part

of chest, right side of chest and arm. There were fractures in his nasal

bone. His 2nd , 3rd and 4th ribs on the left side and 3rd and 4th ribs on the

right side were fractured. There was fracture on upper part of sturnum.

It is apparent that the deceased had sustained injuries all around his

body, which cannot be caused by fall on logs.

Accordingly, the statement of Sukhmati Bahanda (D.W.1) on the

point that the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda died due to fall on logs as he

was in druken condition, does not inspire much confidence. She has

admitted that she lived with the appellant. She is also presently living

with his family. She is a highly interested witness and her occular account Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

regarding the acccidental death of the deceased is also contradicted by

medical evidence and as such, her testimony cannot be read in evidence.

17. In view of the aforesaid evidence both oral and documentary,

we come to the finding that the deceased Ganga Ram Bahanda died

homicial death.

18. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant Turam Bahanda

had assaulted the deceased by slaps, fists and kicks, due to which, the

deceased, Ganga Ram Bahanda succumbed to injuries and died.

19. Nandi Kui (P.W.6) is the informant and wife of the deceased. She

has specifically stated that four years ago, there was some altercation

between her husband, Ganga Ram Bahanda and his brother, the appellant,

Turam Bahanda. Turam Bahanda started assaulting her husband by slaps

and fists. Thereafter, he had given a blow on his testicle, due to which,

her husband succumbed to injuries.

She has been cross-examined at length. She has stated that the

place of occurrence is the courtyard of her house. She has denied that

during the altercation, her husband fell and injured his testicle. She has

also stated that she had reported the matter to the police on the very next

day of the occurrence.

This witness has not been cross-examined on the point of assault

by the appellant on the deceased. She has withstood the test of cross

examination. There is nothing in her cross-examination to doubt her

veracity. Accordingly, we come to a finding that the occular account of

Nandi Kui (P.W.6) that the appellant had assaulted the deceased resulting

in his death can be safely relied upon and can be read in evidence against

the appellant.

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No.79 of 2016

20. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we come to the

finding that the appellant Turam Bahanda had assaulted his brother

Ganga Ram Bahanda by slaps, fists and kicks as alleged by the

prosecution, due to which, Ganga Ram Bahanda died.

21. The learned court below has rightly held the appellant guilty for

committing homicial death of his brother, Ganga Ram Bahanda and held

him guilty for the offence under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal

Code. The quantum of sentence passed by the learned Court below does

not require any interference.

22. This appeal stands dismissed.

23. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 12/09/2022 BS/N.A.F.R.