Bonga Pradhan vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3627 Jhar

                  Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017
    [Against the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2017 and order of sentence
    dated 24.07.2017 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar No. 1, learned District &
    Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial Case No. 362/2009]
                                   ...........

Bonga Pradhan, S/o Late Bade Pradhan, R/o Vill- Rowali, P.O. & P.S.- Bandgaon, District- West Singhbhum (Chaibasa), Jharkhand ... ... Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent ...........

    For the Appellant            : Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, Advocate
    For the State                : Mr. Saket Kumar, Advocate
                            PRESENT
          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMBUJ NATH
                               ...........
C.A.V. on 23/08/2022                 Pronounced on 12/09/2022

Heard Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 22.07.2017 and order of sentence dated 24.07.2017 passed by Sri Rajesh Kumar No. 1, learned District & Additional Sessions Judge-I, Khunti in Sessions Trial Case No. 362/2009, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine he shall undergo further R.I. for six months.

3. The fardbeyan of Ashiya Pradhan was recorded on 20.01.2009, in which, it has been stated that about 1:00 P.M, he along with his wife Sawari Devi and elder sister Ledia Kumari @ Subhash Kumari had gone to attend shradh in the house of Chade Munda. After having meals they returned back to their house and at 3:00 P.M. he had gone to his field along with his wife while his sister stayed at home and Bonga Pradhan (appellant) was also present there. When at 4:00 P.M. he rushed home on hearing some commotions he found his elder sister Ledia Kumari @ Subhash Kumari lying dead near the main door of the house and blood was oozing out from her head. The villagers and Sarna Devi had assembled who disclosed that she

-2- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

had come to throw cow dung when she had seen Bonga Pradhan assaulting the sister of the informant with a rod at which she fled away and informed the villagers. The informant has expressed his ignorance as to the reason for commission of such murder.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Khunti P.S. Case No. 08/2009 was instituted against Bonga Pradhan for the offence u/s 302 of the IPC. On conclusion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted u/s 302 of the IPC and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial Case No. 362/2009. Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Lagnu Pradhan) has stated that the incident is of 20.01.2009 at 3:00 P.M. when he was at his house. Sarna Devi was going to throw cow dung when she raised a cry of alarm at which he came out and saw Bonga Pradhan assaulting Ledia with an iron rod. Bonga Pradhan had assaulted three times on her head and Ledia had died. He had chased Bonga and after apprehending him locked him in a room. The Police on information had come and Bonga Pradhan was handed over to them. He has further stated that the clothes of the accused and the iron rod were seized by the Police and separate seizure lists were prepared. He has identified his signature in both the seizure lists which have been marked as Exhibits-1 and 1/1 respectively. He has also identified the signature of Ashiya Pradhan in the seizure lists which have been marked as Exhibits-1/2 and 1/3 respectively. He has proved the signature of Bonga Pradhan on the seizure list with respect to seizure of iron rod which has been marked as Exhibit- 1/4. He has identified his signature and the signature of Ashiya Pradhan upon the inquest report and which has been

-3- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

marked as Exhibit-1/5 and 1/6 respectively. He has identified the accused in Court.

In cross-examination, he has stated that he had put his signature on the exhibited documents in the Police Station. He has further deposed that Bonga Pradhan after committing the assault was standing at the place of occurrence. He has claimed to have seen the assault. He does not have any enmity with Bonga Pradhan. He does not remember the name of the persons who were present at the place of occurrence except Ashiya and his son.

6. P.W.2 (Sarna Devi) has deposed that it was around 3:00 P.M. on the date of the incident and she was on the way to throw cow dung when she had seen Ledia lying and the accused assaulting her 3-4 times with an iron rod on her head. When she raised alarm, persons had assembled who had caught hold of the accused and locked him in a room. When the Police came the accused was handed over to them. He has stated that Bonga Pradhan was apprehended by Ashiya.

In cross-examination, she has deposed that she had seen Bonga Pradhan assaulting Ledia. She had witnessed the incident from a distance of about 25-30 feet. She cannot say as to who had arrived at the place of occurrence. At the time of the incident Lagnu had gone to work in a stone quarry and Lagnu had come after the occurrence had taken place.

7. P.W.3 (Birsa Pradhan) has deposed that he does not have any knowledge about the incident. He has stated that Ledia Kumari was murdered by a person with a rod.

8. P.W.4 (Mangra Pradhan) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile by the prosecution.

9. P.W.5 (Ashiya Pradhan) is the informant who has stated that the incident had taken place about nine years back. It was in the evening when he returned home from his field he had seen his sister Ledia lying dead in the courtyard. Bonga Pradhan was found hiding in a room and he had put a latch on the door.

-4- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

The Police was informed by Lagnu and when the Police had come his fardbeyan was recorded and Bonga Pradhan was also arrested. He has identified his signature and that of Lagnu in the fardbeyan which have been marked as Exhibits-2 and 2/1 respectively.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that his deceased sister stayed with him. After tracing out Bonga who was in the house he had informed Lagnu Pradhan, Sarna Devi and the villagers. Lagnu and Sarna Devi had come and had opened the latch of the door and found Bonga inside. The recovery of the rod was made by the Police in presence of this witness and others. He has stated that the rod was recovered from Indira Aawas. Bonga used to stay in his house and he did not have any enmity with either this witness or his family members. He had seen the dead body of his sister at 4:30 P.M. and had called Lagnu and Sarna Devi at 5:00 P.M.

10. P.W.6 (Barga Munda) has deposed that the incident is of 7-8 years back and at the time of the incident he was in his house. He and the others had consumed Haria and Ledia fell asleep after having Haria. When Sarna started shouting he and the others had assembled and Sarna disclosed that Bonga had murdered Ledia. The assault was committed with an iron rod.

In cross-examination, he has stated that after consuming Haria, Ledia had gone to sleep in her own house. On hearing the cry of alarm, he had come to the place of occurrence with Lagnu. When they had come Bonga was seen hiding in his room. There has been no enmity between Bonga and Ledia. He does not have any knowledge as to why and how the incident had occurred.

11. P.W.7 (Sawari Devi) is the sister-in-law of the deceased Ledia Kumari. She has deposed that Bonga had committed her murder with an iron rod. At the time of the incident, she was in the field scattering cow dung. When Sarna had raised an alarm, she had gone and found Bonga entering inside the room

-5- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

after assaulting Ledia. The Police was informed by Lagnu who came and took away the dead body.

In cross-examination, she has stated that she was in the field and she had not seen the occurrence. When she arrived Bonga was found hiding in the house. Sarna is her daughter-in-law in relationship. On the date of incident she, her husband, Bonga and Ledia had consumed Haria. The iron rod which was used in the assault was found lying near the dead body. There was no previous dispute between Bonga and Ledia. She has further stated that Bonga was from a different village but stayed in her house. When she raised alarm on seeing the dead body Lagnu had come and Sarna had also come.

12. P.W.8 (Dr. Manvendra Kumar Singh) was posted at Sadar Hospital, Khunti and on 21.01.2009, he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ledia Kumari @ Subhash Kumari and had found the following injuries:

(a) One Lacerated wound on left temporal area size 4" x 1/2" x 3" (bone deep). Left temporal bone fractured and depressed inwards.

(b) One lacerated wound over lateral end of left eye. Size 3" x 3/4" x bone deep. Frontal bone fractured and depressed.

(c) One lacerated & penetrating wound on the forehead in between both eyebrows slightly towards left eye. Size 3" x 1/2" x bone deep nose bridge fractured.

All the injuries were found to be antemortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt object. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-3.

13. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, he has denied his involvement in the occurrence.

14. It has been submitted by Mrs. Leena Mukherjee, learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence of the witnesses throw up major contradictions. She has submitted that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence and the non-examination of the Investigating Officer has also prejudiced the defence.

-6- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

15. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. has submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye-witnesses who have categorically stated about witnessing the incident of assault.

16. We have considered the rival submissions and have also perused the Lower Court Records.

17. The evidence of the witnesses reveal that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 has stated that when P.W.2 raised an alarm, he had come out from the house and had seen the appellant assaulting Ledia Kumari with an iron rod. The star witness in this case is P.W.2 who was the first person to have seen the assault. She is a chance witness as on the way to throw cow dung she had seen the assault committed by the appellant. At the same time, in her cross-examination, she has stated about P.W.1 arriving at the place of occurrence after the incident had taken place as he had gone to work in a stone quarry.

The presence of P.W.2 at the place of occurrence has been sought to be minimized by P.W.5 (informant) and his wife (P.W.7). P.W.5 has stated that he had seen the dead body of his sister at 4:30 P.M. and had thereafter called P.W.1 and P.W.2 at 5:00 P.M. while P.W.7 has stated that on seeing the dead body when she raised alarm P.W.1 and P.W.2 had come. However, in his fardbeyan P.W.5 had stated about the presence of P.W.2 when he had rushed back to his house who had disclosed about witnessing the incident. Therefore, the version of P.W.2 seems to be consistent with the contents of the fardbeyan. We must also bear in mind that the evidence of P.W.2 was recorded within 15 months from the date of occurrence while that of P.W.5 and P.W.7 were recorded after more than 8 years and some variation and contradictions are bound to occur due to the passage of time. P.W.2 has also stood the test of cross-examination and her evidence is reliable and trustworthy.

18. The other aspect of the case is the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence. Though, there are some

-7- Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1653 of 2017

contradictions as to who had locked the appellant inside the room and at which place he was hiding but his presence is beyond doubt as all have consistently stated that the appellant was present in the house. It is also the consistent case of the prosecution and supported by the witnesses that save and except the appellant and the deceased no other person were present in the house and, therefore, the onus of explaining the circumstances was upon the appellant but he has failed to discharge his burden in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement as he has merely denied his involvement in committing the murder.

19. Admittedly, the appellant does not seem to have a motive in committing the murder but in view of the eye-witness account of P.W.2 and the various other circumstances enumerated above the same would not hamper the case of the prosecution in bringing home the guilt of the appellant.

The manner of assault as depicted by P.W.2, the recovery of an iron rod from the place of occurrence is further corroborated by the postmortem report as the Doctor had found three lacerated wounds on the head which were caused by hard and blunt object.

20. The learned trial court has considered all the relevant aspects while convicting the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and having found no reasons to conclude otherwise, this appeal fails, and the same is hereby dismissed.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Ambuj Nath, J.) High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 12th day of September, 2022.

Alok/NAFR