Jharkhand High Court
Jogendra Munduiya @ Yogendra @ Jogen ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 3 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 542 of 2017
[Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 29.06.2016 and order of sentence
dated 30.06.2016 respectively passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum
at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No. 110 of 2014]
Jogendra Munduiya @ Yogendra @ Jogen Munduiya, S/o Late Mado Munduiya,
R/o Village- Bonga Sindari Tola, Dobrobasa, P.O. & P.S.- Manjhari, District- West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa (Jharkhand). .... .... .... Appellant
--Versus--
The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Respondent
For the Appellant : Mr. Girish Mohan Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P.
-----
PRESENT: SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-----
JUDGMENT
By Court:- Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the Judgment of Conviction dated
29.06.2016 and Order of Sentence dated 30.06.2016 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial No.110 of 2014, whereby the
appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and he has been sentenced to undergo
Rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand
Only) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year.
2. Informant is the wife of the deceased (P.W. 8). As per F.I.R, this appellant/accused
entered in the house of the deceased and started quarreling with deceased for having
made some imputation of illicit relationship of the informant with his nephew
Jogendra Munduiya. Appellant went to his house, brought a knife and gave three
blows on the stomach, as a result of which husband of the informant died at the spot.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid fardbeyan of the informant, an F.I.R. being Manjhari
(Tantnagar) P.S. Case No.40 of 2013 under Section 302 has been registered.
4. Police after investigation filed charge-sheet under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code and cognizance was taken as well as charge was framed. The appellant did not
plead guilty and thereafter he was put on trial.
5. In order to prove the case, altogether nine witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution, who are P.W. 1 to P.W. 9 and several documents have been adduced and
marked as Exhibits.
6. After prosecution evidence the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the
appellant was recorded. Defence is of innocence, but no specific defence has been
pleaded.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that incidence took place at the spur
of the moment. Thus, the appellant could not have been convicted under Section 302
of the IPC when false allegation is levelled against this appellant in which the entire
incident occurred. As per him, P.W. 8, who happens to be sole eye witness, cannot
be said to have seen the occurrence as she has stated in cross-examination that at that
time, she was sleeping in her house. When this witness was sleeping, it cannot be
said that she is an eye witness.
8. He further submits that FSL report is not conclusive as there is nothing on record to
suggest that the blood group in the knife matches with the blood group of the
deceased.
9. Learned Spl.P.P. for the State defended the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence. He submits that this case does not come within the definition of Section
300 Part IV IPC as the appellant in a premeditated manner brought the knife from
his house, then stabbed the deceased. There are three injuries that too, on the vital
part of the deceased and the doctor has supported the injuries and further knife was
also recovered on confession of this appellant and the same was sent for FSL and
FSL report also proved that blood in the said knife is of human being.
10. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the records, we find that
P.W. 7, who is the doctor stated that the cause of death is hemorrhage and shock from
the injuries caused by sharp cutting object. He also stated that these injuries are
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. So far as injuries are
concerned, Doctor (P.W.7) has stated that he found three injuries, all are incised
wounds.
11. P.W.7 is the Dr. Birendra Kumar Singh who is the Medical Officer of Sadar Hospital,
Chaibasa, who conducted Post Mortem on the dead-body of the deceased (Jambira
Munduiya) and during P.M. examination of deceased rigor mortis were present in all
forelimbs and found the following ante-mortem injuries :-
External Finding
i) Incised wound on right hypochondrium 2" x ½" x deep to peritoneal cavity.
ii) Incised wound on right side of chest 1" x 1/2" x 2" deep.
iii) Incised wound of epigastric area a part of intestine and omentum is coming
out through the wound.
12. Thus, from the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has been able to establish the fact
that the death is homicidal in nature. Now, the next question is- who was responsible
for this homicidal death?
13. As per the F.I.R and as per the prosecution case, there was only one eye witness of
the said occurrence. The place of occurrence is the house of the deceased and the
wife (P.W. 8) was present in the said house. Let us now analyze the evidence of P.W.
8, who happens to be informant and eye witness of the case. She states that when she
was in the house, appellant came and there was some altercation between him and
the deceased. Though, she did not disclose the reason of altercation. She said that
this appellant thereafter came with knife and stabbed the deceased. As per the
informant [P.W.8], the assault was on the stomach.
14. The fact that the assault was on the stomach is also supported by the medical
evidence. Though, in cross-examination she stated at paragraph 10 that at that time
of incidence, she was sleeping, but in paragraph -14, she states that she knew as to
how the occurrence had taken place as she had seen the occurrence. In the
examination-in-chief also, she stated that she had seen the occurrence committed by
the appellant in front of her. There is nothing in her evidence from which she can be
discredited. P.W. 5 is the village Munda who stated that the P.W. 8 had informed him
about the incident wherein this appellant had committed the murder of her husband
by knife. As being village Munda, he went to the place of occurrence and saw the
dead body. At paragraph 6, he stated that he along with Dakuwa went to the house
of the appellant and the appellant has stated that he had concealed the murder weapon
in the rooftop, which the appellant himself recovered and handed over to the Police.
15. The murder weapon was sent to forensic experts. The report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory has been marked as Ext. 9. As per the said report, the blood found in the
knife is of group 'B'. Further, it is pertinent to mention that the half pant of the
accused was also seized which also bears blood stains of same group and the blood
was of the human origin. Though in the report, there is nothing on record to suggest
that the deceased blood group was also the same which was found in the knife, but
the fact that he was assaulted by knife cannot be disbelieved in view of the statement
of the eye witness. Since the eye witness has stated that the assault was made by
knife and the knife was produced by the appellant himself and was handed over to
the Police, as such, there is no doubt about the recovery of murder weapon on the
disclosure statement of the appellant.
16. From the aforesaid facts, we come to definite conclusion that this appellant is the
person who has committed the murder of the deceased and no reasonable doubt has
been created by the defence in this case. Therefore, the judgment of conviction and
sentence against the appellant is hereby affirmed.
17. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find no merit in this
appeal and accordingly this appeal is dismissed.
Pending I.A(s), if any, also stands dismissed.
Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted to the Court concerned along with
a copy of this judgment.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated 03.09. 2024
Pawan
