Rameshwar Ganjhu vs The State Of Jharkhand
2023 Latest Caselaw 1233 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                      (Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction)

                    Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 320 of 2014

(Against the judgment of conviction dated 15 th February 2008 and the order of
sentence dated 18th February 2008 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions
Judge (FTC), Chatra in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2007)
                                 --------

Rameshwar Ganjhu, son of late Dhanu Ganjhu, resident of village Kusum
Tola, PO and Police Station Piparwar, District Chatra ...... Appellant
                                Versus
The State of Jharkhand                                       ...... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant         :   Mr. Arwind Kumar, Advocate
For the State             :   Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Public Prosecutor
                                  --------------
                              JUDGMENT

21st March 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Rameshwar Ganjhu was put on trial on the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Bigu Ganjhu.

2. In Sessions Trial No. 18 of 2007, Rameshwar Ganjhu who is the appellant before us has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution as narrated by Baleshwar Ganjhu in his fardbeyan recorded at about 8:00 a.m in the morning of 28th April 2006 is that on hearing hulla of bachao bachao, he, his brother Nandlal Ganjhu, Suresh Ganjhu and his wife Phulmani Devi woke up and went towards the room of his father where they saw the appellant assaulting his father with axe. According to the informant, several villagers had assembled there and the appellant leaving the axe there had fled away. The informant has further stated before SI Ajay Kumar Keshri of Piparwar Police Station that there was a land dispute with the appellant.

2 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 320 of 2014

4. In course of the trial, the prosecution has examined eleven witnesses out of whom PW8 and PW9 are the eye-witnesses. The prosecution has also laid in evidence the seizure memo vide exhibit-6/1 and postmortem report vide exhibit-2 to support the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code as framed against the appellant.

5. The trial Judge has held as under:

"14. Now let the evidence of other witnesses be discussed. P.W.1 Raju Ganjhu said that he was sleeping in the night of 27.04.2006. Laldeo (P.W.6) awoke him and told that Rameshwar Ganjhu murdered Bigu. He and Laldeo went to the house of Bigu then saw that Bigu is lying dead in pool of blood and a blood stained shawl, has been sprayed over the body. There was injury of sharp weapon. He also stated that he has stoned the seizure list by which blood stained shawl has been seized.

P.W.4 Laldeo Ganjhu says that he was also sleeping then Phulmani (wife of informant) went there and told that Bigu has been done to death by assaulting with axe then he went to the house of Bigu and saw that Bigu is lying dead in pool of blood and there is sharp cut injury on his head. The dead body is covered with shawl. The brain material had came out from the head. Raju (P.W.1) was also there. He further says in para 2 of his evidence that when he reached Rameshwar was not there. He (accused) was at his home and there was blood stained axe in his hand. By that time villagers gathered.

P.W.2 Dewa Ganjhu says that he was at his home and heard a shought from Raju and Laldeo that Bigu has been murdered then went to the house of Bigu and saw that Bigu has been murdered by assaulting with sharp weapon on his head. The dead body is in pool of blood and the persons gathered are saying that Rameshwar killed Bigu and fled away. He further says in para 2 of his evidence that Rameshwar (accused) was at his home. There was blood stained axe in his hand. They kept him surrounded for the whole night. The police came next morning then Rameshwar Ganjhu was handed over to him. Police seized the axe after making seizure list which he signed as a witness and his signature is Ext.1/1.

P.W.6 Bhikhari Ganjhu says that he went to the house of Baleshwar(informant) upon halla then saw that Bigu has died. Rameshwar was at his home and there was blood stained axe in his hand Police came and seized the axe and he signed on seizure list as a witness and his signature is Ext.1/2.

P.W.7 Badri Ganjhu says that he was at his home. He heard next morning that Rameshwar had murdered Bigu. Then he came to know about the occurrence. He has said nothing more than that.

P.W.11 Ajay Kr. Keshri is the police officer, who has recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and also investigated the case. He has said in para 4 of his evidence that he arrested Rameshwar and on his identification recovered the blood stained axe from the house and seized which by making seizure list.

Seizure list Ext.6/1 shows that a blood stained axe has been recoverred on 28.04.2006 i.e. next morning of the occurrence from the house of the accused Rameshwar Ganjhu situated in village Kusum Tola. The axe was kept stealthly between the upper portion of wall and roof. Ext. 6 shows that a blood stained shawl has been recovered and seized from the court-yard of deceased Bigu Ganjhu.

15. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussions made above this court comes to conclusion that prosecution has proved from the evidence of witnesses of unimpeachable character that 3 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 320 of 2014

accused Rameshwar Ganjhu murdered Bigu Ganjhu in the night of 27.04.2006 by assaulting him by axe and the blood stained axe has been recovered from his house next morning. Accordingly he has committed offence u/s 302 1.P.C. As such accused Rameshwar Ganjhu is found and accordingly held guilty for offence u/s 302 1.P.C. and convicted accordingly. The sentence shall be passed after hearing on the point of sentence. He was arrested by the police on 28.04.2006 and forwarded to court on 29.04.2006 along with the F.1.R. and remanded to jail and since then he is in jail. Let he be produced on 18.02.2008 for hearing on the point of sentence."

6. PW1-Raju Ganjhu, PW3-Phulmani Devi, PW8-Suresh Ganjhu and PW9-Baleshwar Ganjhu are the related witnesses.

7. PW2-Dewa Bhagat, PW4-Laldeo Ganjhu, PW5-Nandlal Ganjhu, PW6-Bhikhari Ganjhu and PW7-Badri Ganjhu are the co-villagers.

8. The evidence tendered by PW8 and PW9 who are supported by PW1 and PW3 on the material aspects of the case has been challenged by Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant as tainted on account of previous animosity with the appellant.

9. No doubt a previous dispute with the appellant may provide a ground to challenge the evidence tendered by a related witness as motivated. However, there is no law of universal application that the testimony of a related witness cannot be accepted by the Court. A related witness is accorded the same position as any other witness and his testimony is accepted by the Court provided the Court does not find traces of falsehood. In fact, a related witness is the person who is most likely to state the truth in the Court and, notwithstanding the prosecution labeling such a witness as interested witness, conviction of the accused can be recorded on the basis of evidence tendered by an interested witness.

10. In "Mano Dutt v. State of U.P" (2012) 4 SCC 79 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations regarding evidence of the family and friends of the victim:

"24. .....Firstly, there is no bar in law in examining family members, or any other person, as witnesses. More often than not, in such cases involving family members of both sides, it is a member of the family or a friend who comes to rescue the injured. Those alone are the people who take the risk of sustaining injuries by jumping into such a quarrel and trying to defuse the crisis. Besides, when the statement of witnesses, who are relatives, or are parties known to the affected party, is credible, reliable, trustworthy, admissible in accordance with the law and corroborated by other witnesses or documentary evidence of the prosecution, there would hardly be any reason for the Court to reject such evidence merely on the ground that the witness was a family member or an interested witness or a person known to the affected party."

4 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 320 of 2014

11. PW9 who is the informant of this case has stated in the Court that he has seen the appellant assaulting his father with an axe in the night of 27th April 2006. He has further stated that the police seized the blood-stained axe which was used by the appellant for assaulting his father. PW8 has also stated that the appellant has committed murder of his father. He has further stated that on raising hulla the villagers had surrounded the house of the appellant till the police arrived in the morning. The appellant who is the cousin brother of Bigu Ganjhu has set-up a defence of false implication on the ground of a land dispute. However, the prosecution witnesses have remained unshaken and from their evidence the allegation of assaulting Bigu Ganjhu is established.

12. Mr. Arwind Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has next submitted that the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code simplicitor is not proper.

13. This submission has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on the basis of the medical evidence tendered by PW10 Dr. Suresh Sahu.

14. Dr. Suresh Sahu who tendered evidence as PW10 has conducted the postmortem examination over the dead body of Bigu Ganjhu. PW10 has found three injuries one of which was incised injury of the size of 8cm x 2cm x 1cm on left submandeble region. The other two injuries are, one of which is a lacerated wound over lower lip, are simple in nature.

15. This is the prosecution evidence that the assault upon Bigu Ganjhu has happened in the night of 27th April 2006. This has also come in the prosecution evidence that on hearing loud sounds the prosecution witnesses have gone to the room of Bigu Ganjhu where they found the appellant assaulting him with an axe. However, how all this had started was not seen by any of the witnesses. Moreover, this is not the medical evidence that the injury no. 2 was sufficient in normal course to cause death of Bigu Ganjhu.

16. While so, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellant under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is not proper and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 15th February and the order of sentence dated 18th February 2008 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are 5 Cr. Appeal (D.B) No. 320 of 2014

set-aside.

17. The appellant above named is convicted and sentenced to RI for 10 years under section 304 Part-I of the Indian Penal Code.

18. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, the learned Public Prosecutor has informed the Court that by virtue of the order passed by the State Sentence Review Board the appellant on completing 14 years of actual sentence and 20 years with remission has been released from jail.

19. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 320 of 2014 is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

20. Let the lower Court records be transmitted to the Court concerned, forthwith.

21. Let a copy of the Judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned through FAX.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated: 21st March 2023 Tanuj/ NAFR