Jharkhand High Court
Dharmendra Samad vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.814 of 2017
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2017 and order of sentence
dated 27.02.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 173 of 2016)
----
Dharmendra Samad, son of late Besra Samad, resident of Jenasai
Tola, Sadhudhipa, PO and PS Toklo, District West Singhbhum
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Md. Zaid Ahmed, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. PP
.........
JUDGMENT
17th October 2024
By Court: We have heard the learned counsel 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 25.02.2017 and order of sentence dated
27.02.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.173 of 2016 whereby and
whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa convicted the appellant under section
302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo
imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the
witnesses are interested witnesses and not a single independent
witness has been examined in this case to prove the prosecution
case. Further no motive has been assigned as to why the
appellant have committed murder of the deceased. As per the
informant and PW3 there were other witnesses also who had
seen the occurrence but they have been withheld by the
prosecution for the reasons best known. Thus as per him the
prosecution has not brought true facts before the Court for which
benefit of doubt should be given to the appellant and he be
acquitted.
4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State
opposes the prayer of the appellant and submits that the eye
witnesses version clearly suggests that this appellant has
committed murder of the deceased. When there is eye witness to
the occurrence of murder, the motive loses its relevance. He
further submits that the medical evidence corroborates the ocular
evidence and the FSL report also corroborates that the axe which
was carried by this appellant was used for commission of
murder. On these grounds he prays for dismissal of this appeal.
5. The prosecution story is based upon the statement of the
informant who is PW1. In the written report which is Exhibit-1
he has stated that he was in his paddy field, next to the primary
school. Upon hearing hue and cry from the school, he reached at
the school and saw his mother lying in a pool of blood and this
appellant was fleeing from the school with an axe in his hand.
When he and others chased this appellant, he fled towards the
paddy field.
6. On the basis of his statement, Chakradharpur (Toklo) PS
Case No. 139 of 2015 was registered under section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code against the appellant.
7. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302 of the Indian Penal. On the basis of
chargesheet and materials on record cognizance was taken and
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where the
charge was framed and the trial proceeded.
8. To prove the prosecution case seven witnesses were
examined, who are :-
i. PW1 :- Shyam Samad (informant)
ii. PW2 :- Sukura Samad
iii. PW3 :- Sandhya Rani Pradhan
iv. PW4 :- Dr. Shivlal Kunkal
v. PW5 :- Kunwar Singh Soren
vi. PW6 :- Mukund Samad
vii. PW7 :- S.I. Bandhana Oraon, I.O.
9. PW4 is the doctor who conducted the postmortem of the
dead body of the deceased and found the followings injuries:
External Injuries :
(i) lacerated wound left side on forehead 1"x½" cranial
cavity.
(ii) lacerated wound on left side of neck 3"x2"x muscle deep.
(iii) Bruise on left side above clavicle.
(iv) lacerated wound 2"x1"x deep to cranial cavity in occipital
area.
(v) bruise in left thigh
Internal Injuries :
(i) head meninges lacerated and pale.
(ii) Thorax - heart left chamber empty. Right chamber
contained blood lungs - empty and intact.
(iii) Abdomen - Stomach - undigested food present.
(iv) Other viscera - NAD
As per the opinion of the doctor the cause of death is head
injury caused by sharp and heavy cutting substance.
From the postmortem report which is Exhibit-2 and also
from the evidence of the doctor, we are satisfied that the
prosecution has been able to prove that this is a case of homicidal
death.
10. So far as the involvement of this appellant is concerned, we
find that PW3 is none but a teacher of the school, where the
incident had occurred. She had stated that this appellant entered
the school with an axe and asked the deceased about his
daughter to which the deceased replied that she has left and then
this appellant with the axe, which he was carrying assaulted the
deceased on her neck and head and committed murder. There is
nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve this witness.
Further PW1 the informant, who was in the field next to the
school, on hearing hue and cry from the school, rushed to the
school and saw his mother lying in a pool of blood and this
appellant leaving the school with an axe in his hand. The
credibility of PW1 has not been shaken in the cross examination.
PW5 was also in his field and on hearing hue and cry, went to
the school and saw this appellant leaving with the axe. Similar is
the statement of PW6. Thus the prosecution has been able to
substantiate beyond reasonable doubt that it is this appellant
who assaulted the deceased and committed the murder. Be it
noted that the medical evidence also corroborated the ocular
evidence, so far as the part of the body where the assault has
been made is concerned.
11. Several documentary evidences were also exhibited which
are as follows:
i. Ext. 1 - written application
ii. Ext.1/1 - forwarding for registration
iii. Ext. 1/2 - registration of this case
iv. Ext.2 - postmortem report
v. Ext.3 - signature of Kunwar Singh Soren in arrest memo
vi. Ext.3/1 - signature of Bandhan Oraon on the arrest memo
vii. Ext.4 - signature of Kunwar Singh Soren in seizure list
viii. Ext.4/1 - signature of Bandhan Oraon on seizure list of axe
ix. Ext. 5 - inquest report
x. Ext.5/1 - signature of Bandhan Oraon on the inquest report
xi. Ext.6 - formal FIR
xii. Ext.7 &7/1 - FSL Reports
12. The prosecution has also exhibited the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) Report. As per the FSL Report, blood was
found in the iron blade of the axe and also on the soil which was
collected where the deceased was lying dead. As per the FSL
report (Exhibit-7 and 7/1) both the blood are of human origin of
the same group. This also suggests that the axe which the
appellant was carrying was used for committing the murder.
13. All the aforesaid facts have been duly considered by the
trial Court and thereafter the trial Court arrived at the conclusion
that it is only this appellant who had committed the murder. We
don't find any material to disagree with the aforesaid finding of
the trial Court.
14. Thus, this criminal appeal is dismissed.
15. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction dated 25.02.2017
and the order of sentence dated 27.02.2017 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in
Sessions Trial No.173 of 2016 are affirmed.
16. We had requested Md. Zaid Ahmed, the learned counsel to
assist this Court and appointed him as learned Amicus Curiae.
Considering his proper assistance, we direct the Jharkhand High
Court Legal Services Committee to pay a remuneration of
Rs. 7,500/- to Md. Zaid Ahmed, the learned Amicus Curiae.
17. 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 : 17/10/2024
Tanuj/
N.A.F.R.
