Jharkhand High Court
Ramdhan Lohra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 29 October, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.657 of 2002
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.07.2002, passed by learned IInd
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions
Trial No.76 of 2000)
------
1. Ramdhan Lohra, son of late Sukhnath Lohra.
2. Jaya Lohra, son of Mahdeo Lohra
Both residents of Village Birhu, Police Station
Khunti, District Ranchi.
... ... Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellants : Mr. A.K. Kashyap, Sr. Advocate, with
Ms. Supriya Dayal, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Lily Sahay, A.P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV on: 24.10.2024 Pronounced on : 29/10/2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellants being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 30.07.2002, passed by learned IInd
Additional Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial
No.76 of 2000, whereby the appellants have been convicted for
offences under Section 302/34 IPC. They were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302/34
I.P.C.
2. Learned senior counsel representing the appellants
submits that save and except the informant, there are no eye
witness to the commission of murder. The statement of the
informant also cannot be relied upon as he can easily be
tutored which is evident from the statement of the witness who
has stated that the informant has a very low IQ. He further
argues that the informant after seeing the murder, returned to
the village and as per the prosecution he informed about the
incident to Lilawati Devi, who is her aunt but the prosecution
has not examined Lilawati Devi as a witness, thus, what he has
stated before Lilawati Devi, has not been proved. Further, the
witness P.W.-6 stated that the informant did not disclose the
name of these appellants before him. Learned senior counsel
argued that without registering the F.I.R., the inquest was done
which is absolutely illegal. He further submits that the genesis
of the occurrence is that the appellant used to brand the
deceased as a witch but there is no evidence on the aforesaid
point. As per him, the informant is neither a reliable witness
nor an eye witness. He also submits that the place of
occurrence has also not been proved.
3. Learned A.P.P. representing the State submits that
the informant is an eye witness and is son of the deceased. He
has witnessed the occurrence and there is nothing in his
evidence to disbelieve him. He further submits that the medical
evidence corroborates with the ocular evidence and the other
witnesses such as P.W.-7 and P.W.-8 have stated about the
occurrence. Thus, he submits that the judgment be affirmed.
4. The prosecution case is based on the fardbeyan of
the informant (P.W.-9). He is the son of the deceased. He
stated that he along with his mother had gone to the market to
sell vegetables. While returning, he stopped to attend the
nature's call but his mother proceeded. In the meantime, these
appellants suddenly came out from the bushes and assaulted
his mother on neck from behind with a sharp cutting weapon.
The informant did not say anything out of fear. The appellants
assaulted the deceased and fled away. It has been mentioned
that the entire incident occurred near the banyan tree and
when he reached there, he saw his mother dead. He went to
the village and narrated the aforesaid fact to his aunt Lilawati
Devi and had taken the name of these appellants to be the
assailants. The villagers reached the place of occurrence and
saw the dead body. He stated that the incident occurred at
about 7' O Clock in the evening. The reason behind the
occurrence is that the deceased was being branded as a witch
by these appellants.
5. On the basis of the above fardbeyan of the
informant, the F.I.R. was registered being Khunti P.S. Case
No.27/99 under Section 302/34 I.P.C. After investigation,
charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants under
Section 302/34 I.P.C. Cognizance was taken and the case was
committed to the Court of Sessions, where the appellants
pleaded not guilty, thus, charges were framed.
6. To prove that the death is homicidal, the Doctor who
conducted the post-mortem report, has been examined as
P.W.1. The Doctor found injury on the neck. About ¾ of the
neck was cut from back to front, all the soft tissue and
vertebrae were cut. The nature of the injury was ante-mortem
which was caused by sharp cutting weapon and the cause of
death is the injury on the vital part of body. The post-mortem
examination report was marked as Ext.1.
7. Thus, from the post-mortem report and the
evidence of the Doctor, we find that one blow was given on the
neck by a sharp cutting weapon. The impact of the blow was
such that the neck was cut from back to front and all the soft
tissue and vertebrae were cut. In fact, 3/4th of the neck was
cut. From the evidence, we find that the assault was from the
back to the front, which is the prosecution case as per
fardbeyan. The evidence clearly suggest that the death is
homicidal.
8. Now, the entire prosecution case of implicating
these appellants and convicting them, is based on the sole
testimony of the eye witness - P.W.-9. P.W.-9 is the son of the
deceased who was with the deceased while they were
returning. He stated that he went along with his mother to sell
vegetables but at 4 O' Clock, while returning, near the river, his
mother was murdered near the banyan tree. The murder was
committed by Ramdhan and Jaya with balua. He stated that he
has seen the occurrence. He went to the village and raised
alarm and when the villagers reached the place of occurrence,
his mother was already dead. He stated that the head of the
dead body was towards east direction. The police came and
recorded his statement. In cross-examination, he stated that
his father lives elsewhere and he has also informed about the
murder to his father but his father did not go to the place of
occurrence. He admitted that his statement was recorded by
the police. Bhudu Rijha, Ramcharan and several others
accompanied him to the Police Station. He stated that these
two appellants were known to him and they are from Birhu
Village. Before the occurrence, he had met the appellants
earlier also. Prior to committing the murder of his mother,
earlier he was also assaulted by these two appellants, for which
a case was also filed in Khunti Police Station. He stated that his
mother's dead body was lying on the road near Tajna Line
Hotel. The dead body was taken to the Police Station. As per
him, there was some distance between his mother and him
while they were returning. He stated that his father has driven
out his mother as he had solemnized second marriage. His
father was not maintaining his mother nor had given share in
the property. His father also did not attend the last rites of his
mother.
9. From the aforesaid evidence, we find that the
informant has stated that at the time of commission of the
murder, he was with his mother and had seen these two
appellants assaulting his mother with balua. The assault was
from back towards the front. He further established that he
knew these two appellants from before and he met them more
than once. He also stated that on earlier occasion he was also
assaulted by these appellants for which a case was filed in the
Khunti Police Station. From the statement, we find that the
dead body was lying near the road and the banyan tree, which
was near the Tajna Line Hotel. The identity of the appellants
were also proved by him.
10. P.W.-7 is Sewak Mahto. He stated that the mother of
the informant was murdered. The informant came to the village
and raised alarm and stated that near the banyan tree in the
evening, his mother was murdered by Ramdhan and Jaya with
the help of balua. This witness stated that he had seen the
dead body which was lying on the ground and he also identified
these two appellants. In cross-examination, he stated that he
could come to know about the occurrence when the informant
raised alarm and he has also given the statement before the
police. The body was found in the Khunti Road and there were
bushes and dry soil. This witness also stated that the head of
the dead body was towards east direction and the leg was
towards the west.
11. From the evidence of this witness, we find that the
statement of the informant is corroborated to the extent that
the informant had gone to the village and raised alarm and
stated that it is these two appellants who have committed the
murder. This witness also stated that the murder had taken
place near the banyan tree which fact is corroborated from the
statement of this informant. From his evidence, it is clear that
he had gone to see the dead body and saw the dead body
which was lying with the head on the east direction. This
witness corroborates the position of the dead body as stated by
the informant.
12. P.W.-8 namely Ramcharan Gope had stated that he
had seen the dead body and there was injury on the neck.
Blood stained soil was seized by the police seizure list of which
this witness has signed, was marked as Ext.3/1. This witness
also stated that the informant has disclosed that these two
appellants have committed the murder of his mother
(deceased). The statement of this witness was also recorded by
the police. In cross-examination, this witness stated that he
had a direct talk with the informant on this issue when the aunt
of the informant - Lilawati Devi was also there.
13. Thus, from his evidence, it is clear that the
informant has also stated before him that it is these two
appellants who had committed the murder and these witnesses
had also seen the dead body of the deceased with injury on the
neck. From his statement, it is also clear that Lilawati Devi
(aunt) was also present. Thus, the statement of the informant
and the statement made in the F.I.R.is fully corroborated by
these witnesses.
14. P.W.-3 namely Jitwahan Ganjhu stated that he had
seen the dead body and he has found the injury on the neck
and very small portion of the neck was attached to the body.
This statement corroborates the medical evidence and also the
statement of the informant in the F.I.R. that the assault was
made on the neck. He is the witness to the inquest and his
signature were marked as Ext.2 and 2/1.
15. From the evidence of these witnesses, we find that
the statement of the informant has been fully corroborated on
the point that these two appellants have committed murder by
assaulting the deceased on the neck. The medical evidence also
corroborates the ocular evidence as the Doctor found that 3/4 th
of the neck was cut from back. Be it noted that in the
fardbeyan, the informant had stated that the assault was from
the back on the neck.
16. Another important witness is P.W.-4 namely Mahavir
Mahto, who stated that on the date of occurrence he had seen
the informant came running in the village shouting that his
mother has been murdered. He stated that informant told him
that he along with his mother were returning when he fell back
to ease himself then suddenly from the bushes, two persons
came out and assaulted his mother (deceased) and fled. This
witness also stated that the informant had told him that it is
Ramdhan Lohar and Jaya Lohar who had committed the
murder. The villagers had also gone and seen the dead body.
17. There was no occasion to tutor the informant
because all the witnesses have stated that he came running to
the village and narrated the entire fact which is exactly same
as has been narrated in the F.I.R. and he had taken the name
of these two appellants as the assailants. Further, from the
entire evidence, we find that there was no one in his house
except he and his mother, as the father has already deserted
them and had not even came at the time of occurrence or
thereafter, so there is no occasion for anyone to tutor him.
Even this P.W.-4 who had stated that the informant is of lesser
IQ corroborates the statement of the informant that it is these
two appellants who have committed the murder as the
informant had also narrated to him in details. The time period
i.e. the time when the murder had taken place and the
informant narrating the incident to the villagers taking name of
the appellants, is too short. Within this short period no one can
tutor a witness, that too when there is nothing to suggest that
he met anyone during the intervening period. Thus, the
contention of learned senior counsel representing the
appellants that this informant is a tutored witness as he is of
unsound mind, is not accepted by the Court and this Court is
not agreeable that the informant is tutored. Though, P.W.-4 had
stated that the informant is a person of less IQ but that does
not mean that he is a person of unsound mind. There is
nothing in the evidence of the informant that he is of unsound
mind. The Court who had recorded the statement of the
informant as P.W.-9 has also not made any such recording. This
witness may be of a lesser IQ but that does not mean that he is
incompetent to depose or he can easily been tutored. Thus, we
are not accepting the said submission of learned counsel
representing the appellant, more so in view of the
overwhelming corroborative evidence against these appellants.
18. The conduct of the informant in not rushing to save
his mother is a natural conduct as because the entire incident
occurred within a flash of a moment and when these appellants
came out from the bush, assaulted the deceased on neck from
behind with balua and giving one blow, they fled. The
informant was keeping a distance with his mother when they
were walking as he fell back to ease himself. Further, in his
fardbeyan he stated that he was shocked after seeing the
incident and he also had an apprehension that he would be
assaulted. The fact that on earlier occasion, he was assaulted
by the appellants has been narrated by him as a witness, which
fact has not been questioned or controverted by the defence
while cross-examining him. Rather, it has come in cross-
examination in para-14 that for the assault upon him on earlier
occasion, a case was also filed, which means that the threat
perception on the informant was already there.
19. Learned senior counsel tried to raise the issue of
place of occurrence. According to him, the place of occurrence
is not proved. We also do not agree with the same as the place
of occurrence has been proved which is in the side of the road
near the banyan tree and there were bushes. The witnesses
who have seen the dead body lying in the place of occurrence,
had stated that there were bushes by the side of the road and
it is the prosecution case that from the bushes these appellants
came and assaulted the deceased.
20. So far as motive is concerned, this is a case where
the eye witness has seen the occurrence of murder and the
evidence of the eye witness is reliable.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madan vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1473 has held that when there is direct evidence motive looses
its significance.
21. Further, the law is well settled that if a witness is
reliable, based on the testimony of the sole eye witness,
conviction can be sustained. There is no legal impediment in
convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single eye
witness. If there is any doubt about the testimony, the Court
must insist corroboration, this has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Amar Singh Vs. State (NCT of
Delhi) reported in (2020) 19 SCC 165.
22. This is a case based on the testimony of the sole
eye witness. From the evidence, we could not find any material
to disbelieve him or to arrive at a conclusion that he is not
trustworthy. Further, as held earlier, the other witnesses had
also corroborated the statement of the informant. Thus, there
is no material to disbelieve him. We thus, hold that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellants
and the charge framed against them beyond shadow of all
reasonable doubt.
23. Thus, the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 30.07.2002, passed by learned IInd Additional
Judicial Commissioner, Khunti, in Sessions Trial No.76 of 2000,
does not warrant any interference and the same is hereby
affirmed.
24. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
25. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
26. Trial Court Record be transmitted to the Court
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. - I agree
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 29/10/2024
AFR / Prashant
