Baburam Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 10306 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Baburam Kisku vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 November, 2024

Author: Ananda Sen

Bench: Ananda Sen

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.708 of 2016
                               -----
     (Against the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2016 and order of sentence
     dated 12.02.2016 passed by the learned District and Additional Sessions
     Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2014)
                                    ----
     Baburam Kisku, son of late Konda Kisku, resident of village Mirgitar,
     PO and PS-Galudih, District Singhbhum (East)    ... Appellant(s).

                               Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                              ... Respondent(s).
                                   ------
                             PRESENT
                        SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
                  SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
                              ------
     For the Appellant(s)      : Mr. Ashish Verma, Amicus Curiae
     For the Respondent(s)     : Mr. Saket Kumar, APP
                                 .........
                           JUDGMENT

11th November 2024

By Court: We have heard the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State at length.

2. This Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2016 and order of sentence dated 12.02.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2014 whereby and whereunder learned District and Additional Session Judge, Ghatshila convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

3. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness to the said occurrence and in fact, the First Information Report (FIR) is against unknown. The wife of the deceased did not file any missing report about missing of her husband which makes the prosecution case against this appellant doubtful. He further submits that there is no motive and the case being based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstance is not complete. He further argues that the weapon which was recovered and alleged to be murder weapon had been planted and measurement of the said weapon clearly suggests the fact that the same cannot be used to chop the head of the deceased.

4. The learned counsel for the State argues that since this is a case involving circumstantial evidence, the evidences which has been laid by the prosecution is complete and the chain has also been completed. PWs have stated about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and thereafter the dead body of the deceased was found. Though the confessional statement was recorded after 10 days of lodging the FIR but the recovery of the murder weapon based on the confessional statement of the appellant cannot be doubted. PW1 also supports the aforesaid recovery. FSL Report of the blood found in the soil where the dead body was recovered and the blood which was found in the axe recovered on the basis of the confessional statement of this appellant, clearly suggests that it is the appellant who has committed the murder and none else. As per him the prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts thus, this appeal needs to be dismissed.

5. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal and the appellant was put on trial.

6. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on record, cognizance was taken and the case was committed to Court of Sessions where charges were framed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and trial proceeded.

7. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, who are as under:-

i. PW1 :- Dhanu Kisku ii. PW2 :- Basen Hembram iii. PW3 :- Sagar Kisku iv. PW4 :- Dr. Lalan Choudhary v. PW5 :- Gurucharan Hansda vi. PW6 :- Shukmoni Hansda vii. PW7 :- Kandra Hansda viii.PW8:- Lusu Kisku ix.PW9:- Yogendra Paswan x.PW10:- Thakko Mahato, IO

8. Following documents have been exhibited :

      i.     Ext.1 -       signature of PW1 on seizure list
     ii.     Ext. 1/1-     signature of PW2 on seizure list
     iii.    Ext.1/2-      seizure list
     iv.     Ext.2 -       postmortem report
     v.      Ext.3 -       signature of PW5 on fardbeyan
     vi.     Ext.3/1 -      fardbeyan
     vii.    Ext.4 -       confessional statement
     viii.   Ext.5 -       search cum seizure list
     ix.     Ext.6 -       formal FIR
     x.      Ext.7 -       FSL Report

9. The Doctor who conducted the postmortem is PW4. He found the following ante mortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased.

A(i) incised cut separation wounds 11.5 cm transversely and 12.5 cm antero posteriorly over neck at the level of 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra. All the concerned organs, muscles and vessels cut separated.

(ii) 12 cm antero posteriorly and 12.5 cm transversely over base of skull at the level of 3rd and 4th cervical vertebra. All the concerned muscles, organs and vessels cut separated. B(i) incised cut 11 cm x 2 cm x muscle deep obliquely over the back of left side of occipital scalp. Lungs are pale, viscera pale, heart soft and empty. Stomach empty and urinary bladder empty. Brain soft and contused all over.

In the opinion of the doctor the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock. All the injuries were caused by sharp edged heavy object.

10. The FIR was at the instance of Gurucharan Hansda who is the brother of the deceased. He received a telephonic information on 16.09.2013 from his co-villager, who informed him about murder of his younger brother i.e. Ajit Hansda whose dead body was lying on the village road. The informant at that time was working as laborer in Adityapur, Jamshepdur. In the evening he came to his home and saw the dead body whose head was severed from the body and the murder seem to have been committed by sharp cutting weapon. It is further mentioned in the fardbeyan that on the evening of 15.09.2013 Ajit Hansda went out of his house, but he did not return. On 16.09.2013 his headless dead body was recovered. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant which is Exhibit-3/1, the FIR being Galudih PS Case No. 34 of 2013 under section 302/34 IPC was registered.

11. Admittedly there is no eye-witness to the said occurrence and the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence.

12. After going through the evidence, we find that the circumstances are:- quarrel between the appellant and the deceased while they were playing cards, the body was found on the road near the house of the appellant, confessional statement of this appellant which led to recovery of the murder weapon i.e. axe, which was concealed in the house of this appellant, the axe was blood stained, the blood on the axe and the blood soaked soil which were seized from next to the body of the deceased were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and blood contained in both the sample matched and was found to be of human.

13. PW1 is the seizure witness of the axe. He was also witness to the quarrel between this appellant and the deceased. He stated that he was there when this appellant and deceased were playing cards at night and there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased, thereafter they left. He also stated that on the confession of this appellant, axe was recovered from the house of the appellant which was concealed by him. He also narrated that the axe was blood stained. His signature in the seizure list was marked as Exhibit-1.

The investigating officer who is PW10 also stated that this appellant came to the police station and confessed his guilt and on his pointing out and disclosure, the blood stained axe was recovered from the house of this appellant.

We find no material to disbelieve this two witnesses. There is nothing in their cross examination which can remotely suggests that their statements are tainted and unreliable. Thus the fact that the blood stained axe was recovered from the house of this appellant on the basis of his confessional statement has been proved by the prosecution.

14. Further, PW1 was with this appellant and the deceased when they were playing cards. He stated that quarrel cropped up between them. This statement has also supported the prosecution case that there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Thus we find that there is a motive on part of the appellant to commit murder.

15. So far as the recovery of the dead body is concerned, we find that the dead body was recovered from the road which was next to the house of this appellant. This fact has been substantiated from the statement of PW10 himself.

16. The police during investigation recovered the head of the dead body from the bushes which was near the place where the

body was found. The blood stained soil was seized by the police which was near the dead body. This blood stained soil along with the blood of the axe were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The report of Forensic Science Laboratory is marked as Exhibit-7. As per the report, the blood found from the place where the body was recovered and the blood which was found from the swab of the axe were of human origin and both are of group-A. Thus, we find that the blood group matches.

17. From the aforesaid fact, we find that the prosecution has been able to prove the motive of commission of murder and the involvement of this appellant based on the recovery in terms of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned Trial Court considered all these aspects and have come to the conclusion that it is this appellant who had committed the murder. We don't find any material to disagree with the findings of the learned Trial Court. The prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. Save and except this appellant, there could not have been any other who could have committed the murder. Defence also has not come up with any alternative probable theory.

18. Considering what has been held above, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed as the judgment of the Trial Court is well reasoned and covers all aspect.

19. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 09.02.2016 and the order of sentence dated 12.02.2016 passed by learned District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2014 are affirmed.

20. In this case, Mr. Ashish Verma, the learned Amicus Curiae has assisted this Court to the best of his abilities. Considering his proper assistance and effort, we direct the Jharkhand High Court

Legal Services Committee to pay a remuneration of Rs. 7,500/- to Mr. Ashish Verma, the learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant.

21. Let a copy of the judgment along with the Trial Court Records be sent back to the Court concerned forthwith.

(ANANDA SEN, J.)

(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated : 11/11/2024 Tanuj/

N.A.F.R.