Jharkhand High Court
Ganesh @ Mangal Soren vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 August, 2023
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 892 of 2008
With
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 905 of 2008
---
Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2008 and order of sentence dated
02.07.2008 passed by Shri Bishwanath Sahu, learned Additional Sessions Judge-I,
Rajmahal in S.C. Case No. 253 of 1998.
---
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 892/2008
1. Ganesh @ Mangal Soren
2. Lal Murmu --- --- --- Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- --- Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 905/2008
1. Mangal Moris Murmu
2. Bablu Murmu
Versus
The State of Jharkhand --- --- --- Respondent
---
For the Appellants: Dr. H. Waris, Amicus Curiae [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 892/2008]
Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate[Cr.Appeal (DB) No. 905/2008]
For the State: Mr. Saket Kumar, A.P.P
---
PRESENT
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ambuj Nath
----
Reserved on: 31.01.2023 Pronounced on:24.08.2023
----
Both these criminal appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment. As such,
both these criminal appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. Appellants-Ganesh @ Mangal Soren and Lal Murmu in Cr. Appeal (DB) No.
892/2008 and Appellants-Mangal Moris Murmu and Bablu Murmu have preferred these
appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 30.06.2008, and order of sentence dated
02.07.2008, passed by Shri Vishwanath Sahu, Additional Sessions Judge-I, Rajmahal in
S.C. Case No. 253 of 1998 arising out of Rajmahal P.S. Case No. 119/1990
corresponding to G.R. No. 195/1990, holding the appellants guilty of the offences under
sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 I.P.C and thereby sentencing them to undergo
imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section 302/34
I.P.C, R.I for ten years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under section
364/34 I.P.C and R.I for seven years along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under
section 201/34 I.P.C. In default of payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo
R.I for six months for each fine. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. The
period already undergone by the appellants during the trial was ordered to be set off.
3. Prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant
Matal Murmu, alleging therein that on 26.05.1990 at about 8.00 am, he had gone to
Tinpahar for marketing, where some people told him that dead body of his brother Barka
Murmu was lying on the railway track near village Salbandra. He rushed to the house of
his brother and found that nobody was present there. His sister-in-law was also missing.
Blood was splattered in the house. He went to the railway line between Parariya and
Domtoli and found that dead body of his brother Barka Murmu was lying near the railway
track. His dead body was severed into two pieces after being run over by a train. He also
found sharp cutting injuries near his neck. He raised suspicion upon the present appellants
as they were alleging that Barka Murmu had committed murder of Marang Murmu. He
has further stated that the appellants have falsely implicated him and his brother Barka
Murmu for the death of Marang Murmu. They had also demolished their house, due to
which, he and his brother had left the village Salbandra and started living in their sasural
at Sagarbanga.
4. After investigation, police submitted charge sheet in this case under sections 302,
364 and 201/120B I.P.C.
5. After cognizance, this case was committed to the court of sessions by Shri B.
Sharan, Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal as it was exclusively triable by the court
of sessions.
6. Charge was framed against the appellants on 24.03.2000, under section 302/34,
364/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. Contents of the charge was read over and explained to the
appellants in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to prove its case, prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary
evidence.
8. Matal Murmu (P.W-1) is the Informant of this case. He has supported the
allegation as made out in his fardbeyan.
Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) is the wife of the Informant Matal Murmu. She has claimed
herself to be the eyewitness to the occurrence.
Dr. Raman Kumar (P.W-3) has performed postmortem on the dead body of the
deceased. He has proved the postmortem report which is Ext.-1.
Sohagni Murmu (P.W-4) is the daughter of the Informant Matal Murmu. She has
also claimed to be the eyewitness to the occurrence.
Noman Ali (P.W-5) is the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Rajmahal who had
recorded the statement of Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) and Sohagni Murmu (P.W-4) under
section 164 Cr. P.C which are Ext.2 series.
Dilip Kumar Jha (P.W-6) is an Advocate Clerk, who has proved the formal FIR
which is Ext.3. He has also proved the endorsement on the fardbeyan made by the
Officer-in-charge, Rajmahal Police Station which has been marked Ext.4. Both Ext.3 and
4 have been marked exhibits with objection.
9. Statement of the appellants was recorded under section 313 Cr. P.C. Defence is
general denial of the occurrence and false implication.
10. Appellants have also adduced both oral and documentary evidence. Parmeshwar
Turi has been examined as D.W-1, whereas Michael Kerketta has been examined as D.W-
2. He has proved the Original Attendance Register of Train Examiner Platform,
Sahebganj dated 25.05.1990, showing that the appellant Moris Mangal Murmu was on
duty at the time of occurrence. Signature of Moris Mangal Murmu has been marked Ext.-
A.
11. On the basis of the evidence - oral and documentary - available on the record,
learned Trial Court held the appellants guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced
them accordingly.
12. Dr. H. Waris, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr. Appeal
(DB) No. 892/2008 and Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellants in Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 905/2008, submitted that the appellants have
been held guilty only on the basis of the statement of witnesses Cheti Hansda (P.W-2)
and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) who have claimed themselves to be eyewitness. It was
submitted that Cheti Hansda is the wife of the Informant Matal Murmu, while Sohagini
Murmu (P.W-4) is his daughter. It was submitted that FIR was registered against
unknown persons. Both these so-called eyewitnesses had not told the Informant about the
fact that they had seen the appellants committing murder of the deceased. Accordingly, it
was submitted that their testimony before the court cannot be relied upon. It was further
submitted that the Investigating Officer has not been examined in this case, which has
caused great prejudice to the case of the appellants. Accordingly, it was prayed that both
these appeals be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of the charges.
13. Mr. Saket Kumar, learned A.P.P. submitted that there is direct evidence against the
appellants that they had committed murder of the deceased Barka Murmu and abducted
his wife who is missing after the incidence. It was further submitted that the appellants in
order to give the murder of the deceased a colour of suicide, left his dead body on the
railway line. It was further submitted that the prosecution has been able to prove its case
against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
14. Now, it has to be ascertained, whether prosecution has been able to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt.
In order to come to the aforesaid finding, it has to be further ascertained,
(i) whether deceased Barka Murmu died homicidal death,
(ii) whether statement of Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4)
can be relied upon and
(iii) whether appellants have caused homicidal death of Barka Murmu and abducted
his wife?
15. Mangal Murmu (P.W-1) is the Informant of this case. He has stated that he came to
know that the dead body of his brother Barka Murmu was lying on the railway line. He
went to his house at Salbandra and did not find anyone inside his house. His wife Sukhi
Hansda was also missing. He found blood stains in the house. He has further stated that
he went towards the railway line near Domtoli and Parariya village where he found the
dead body of his brother Barka Murmu. It was cut into two pieces.
16. Dr. Raman Kumar (P.W-3) is the doctor who conducted postmortem examination
on the dead body of the deceased. He has stated that on 27.05.1990, he conducted
postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and found the following ante-mortem
injuries: -
i. Two sharp cuts on posterior part of head and neck, lower one cutting the spine and
spinal cord.
He also found the following postmortem injury on the person of the deceased:-
Body was cut into two parts by a lacerated cut across the trunk. Upper segment
containing head and left upper limb and lower segment containing right upper limb trunk
and lower limbs.
He further gave details of the antemortem injuries as follows:-
i. One sharp cut on posterior part of the skull 5"X1"X ½ "curved in shape with blood
clots.
ii. One deep sharp cut on upper part of the neck posteriorly extending from left ear to
right ear 6"X2"X3" cutting vertebra muscles and spinal cord with blood clots.
According to this witness, death of the deceased was caused by shock and
hemorrhage due to wound on the posterior part of neck caused by sharp cutting weapon.
He has further stated that time elapsed since death was within 72 hours. He has proved
Xerox copy of the postmortem report which is Ext.1.
In his cross-examination, he has stated that all the injuries were not of the same
age. He has further stated that postmortem examination was conducted on 27.05.1990 at
8.00 am.
From perusal of the postmortem report (Ext.1), it transpires that the findings of the
doctor (P.W-3) in the postmortem report corroborate his oral testimony made in the court
during the trial.
17. It is apparent that the deceased died due to the injuries caused by sharp cutting
weapon. These injuries extended from left ear to the right ear. None of the injuries
manifest that it was either accidental or self-inflicted. Accordingly, we come to a finding
that the deceased Barka Murmu died a homicidal death.
18. It is the further case of the prosecution that the appellants had caused homicidal
death of the deceased Barka Murmu and abducted his wife Sukhi Hansda and thereafter
she was untraceable. Prosecution has mainly relied upon the statement of Cheti Hansda
(P.W-2) and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) to prove its case against the appellants. Sohagini
Murmu (P.W-4) is the daughter of Cheti Hansda (P.W-2). Both these witnesses have
stated that on the date of occurrence, they had gone to the house of Barka Murmu at
Salbandra. Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) has stated that they were sleeping outside the hut. Both
of them have stated that in the dead of night, on hulla, they got up and saw that the
appellant Mangal Moris Murmu gave axe blow on the head of the deceased Barka Murmu
and Bablu Murmu inflicted farsa blow on the back of the head of the deceased. They had
stated that the appellant Lal Murmu had caught hold of the deceased Barka Murmu and
the appellant Ganesh @ Mangal Soren had caught hold of Sukhi Hansdah. After the
occurrence, they fled away. Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) had stated that after two days when
her father came home, she told him about the occurrence. Both these witnesses have been
cross-examined at length. Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) has stated that she did not tell anybody
about the occurrence. She has admitted that her husband was an accused in a murder case
and appellants had falsely implicated him in that case.
19. Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) in her cross-examination has stated that she, her mother,
her aunt and her uncle were sleeping in the same room. She has stated that the appellants
had not attempted to cause any harm to her. She has further stated that she has not
reported the matter to anyone. She told his father about the occurrence on Sunday. She
has stated that the appellants had assaulted the deceased thrice by axe and twice by Farsa
on his neck. She has further stated that her statement under section 164 Cr. P.C was
recorded after one and half months from the date of occurrence.
20. Matal Murmu (P.W-1) who is Informant of this case, has stated that he heard about
the murder of his brother in Tinpahar. On hearing about the occurrence, he went to his
house and found that blood was splattered there. He went to the railway line near Domtoli
and Parariya and saw that dead body of the deceased was cut into two pieces. He has
raised suspicion on the appellants as they had implicated him and his brother in a false
case of murder of one Sarang Murmu. In his cross-examination, he has stated that on the
date of occurrence, his wife and daughter had gone to Taljhari.
21. Now, it has to be ascertained,
(i) whether the statement of Cheni Hansda (P.W-2) and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4)
can be relied upon?
Occurrence is said to have taken place in the night of 25/26.05.1990. Matter was
reported on 26.05.1990 by the Informant Matal Murmu (P.W-1). Cheti Hansda (P.W-2)
and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) are wife and daughter respectively of the Informant Matal
Murmu. They had stated that on the date of occurrence, they were present at the place of
occurrence. Cheti Hansda (P.W-2) has stated that she and her daughter Sohagini Murmu
(P.W-4) were sleeping outside the hut, while the deceased Barka Murmu and his wife
were sleeping inside the hut. Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) has stated that she and her mother
(P.W-2) were sleeping in the same room with her uncle Barka Murmu (deceased) and his
wife. There is vital contradiction in their statement on this point. Sohagini Murmu (P.W-
4) has stated that the appellants did not attempt to cause any harm to her and her mother
and allowed them to escape from the place of occurrence, knowing fully well that they
were eyewitness to the occurrence and may depose against them. She has stated that the
appellants had assaulted the deceased thrice by axe and twice by Farsa on his neck. Her
statement on the manner of assault is contradicted by the findings in the postmortem
report. The entire facts narrated by Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) that she was sleeping inside
the room with the deceased Barka Murmu and his wife Sukhi Hansda, does not appear to
be convincing and it cannot be relied upon. Their presence at the place of occurrence is
itself doubtful.
22. Furthermore, doctor (P.W-3) had stated that he had performed postmortem on the
dead body of the deceased Barka Murmu on 27.05.1990 at 8.00 am i.e. postmortem was
conducted within 24 hours from the time of occurrence. However, doctor (P.W-3) has
stated that time of death of the deceased was about 72 hours from the time of postmortem.
23. Non examination of the investigating officer has also caused prejudice to the case
of the appellants, as they could not examine him, as to when the statement of Cheti
Hansda (P.W-2) and Sohagini Murmu (P.W-4) was recorded under Section 161 of
Cr.P.C. and whether they had opportunity to meet the informant before lodging of the
F.I.R.
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we come to a finding that the prosecution has
not been able to prove its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt.
25. Both these appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial court holding the appellants guilty for the offences under
sections 302/34, 364/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. Pending I.A., if
any, also stands disposed of.
Appellants are in custody. They shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any
other case.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
(Ambuj Nath, J)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated 24th August 2023
Ranjeet/
