Gautam Mukhi @ Butru vs State Of Jharkhand
2024 Latest Caselaw 9061 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Gautam Mukhi @ Butru vs State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024

Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay

               Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1275 of 2018
    [Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2018
    (sentence passed on 11.10.2018) passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned
    Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial
    No. 184/2013]
                              ...........
     1.   Gautam Mukhi @ Butru, S/o late Bishwanath Mukhi, R/o
     Bhalubasa, Harijan Basti, P.O. & P.S. Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur,
     District- East Singhbhum
     2.   Birju Mukhi @ Pellu, S/o Dev Das Mukhi, R/o Hume Pipe,
     Nirmal Nagar, Bhuiyadih, P.O. & P.S. Sitaramdera, Jamshedpur,
     District- East Singhbhum                     ... ... Appellants
                              Versus
     State of Jharkhand                           ... ... Respondent
                              ...........
     For the Appellants         : Ms. Ashwini Priya, Amicus curiae
     For the State              : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
                               PRESENT
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
                              ...........
C.A.V. on 04/09/2024                   Pronounced on 09/09/2024
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

Heard Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned Amicus curiae for the appellants and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 09.10.2018 (sentence passed on 11.10.2018) passed by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in Sessions Trial No. 184/2013, whereby and whereunder the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable u/s 341/34, 323/34 and 307/34 of the IPC and have been sentenced to undergo S.I. for 01 month for the offence u/s 341/34 of the IPC, R.I. for 06 months for the offence u/s 323/34 of the IPC and R.I. for 10 years along with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence punishable u/s 307/34 of the IPC and in default in payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 06 months.

3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of Raj Kansari, recorded on 09.01.2013, wherein it has been stated that on 31.12.2012 at 2:15 A.M. he was dancing in Teachers Colony to celebrate the advent of the New Year. In course of dancing his power spectacles were broken by Gautam Mukhi. This led to a scuffle between the informant and his friend Bittu with Birju @ Pellu, Goutam Mukhi and Kunnu. On 01.01.2013, the matter was compromised between both the sides. On 04.01.2013, Birju came to the place of work of the informant at Alishan Towers, Mango and stated that he would not abide by the compromise and he will murder the informant and his friend Bittu. While saying so Birju started committing assault upon Bittu as a result of which Bittu suffered injury on his forehead. It has been alleged that on 06.01.2013, at 7:30 P.M., the informant and his friend Bittu were called to the field situated at Bhalubasa, Harijan School by Birju @ Pellu, Goutam @ Butru and Kunnu. The informant and Bittu went to the said place and advised them to keep peace but Birju did not agree. On 08.01.2013 at 8:30 A.M., the informant was cleaning the well at Alishan Towers, Mango and was loading the garbage in a Jute bag and while going towards Azadnagar, Road No. 14 Birju @ Pellu asked him to stop and when the informant become stationary Birju caught his hand and stabbed him on his abdomen with a knife. The informant by pressing his wound and by shouting rushed to Gurunanak Hospital and called the Secretary of Alishan Towers over phone and also Bittu as well as his elder brother. They had come and thereafter shifted him to TMH where his treatment is going on.

Based on the aforesaid allegations Mango (Azadnagar) P.S. Case No. 22/2013 was instituted u/s 341/ 323/ 307/34 of the IPC. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted and after cognizance was taken the case was committed to the Court of Sessions where it was registered as Sessions Trial No. 184/2013. Charge was framed against the accused persons u/s 341/323/307/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained to the accused in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as seven witnesses in support of its case.

5. P.W.1 (Tarun Kumar Singh) has stated that about a year back at 9:30 A.M., he was going towards his shop when he had seen two persons scuffling over garbage. One of them had assaulted the other with a knife and thereafter fled away.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he does not know about the incident.

6. P.W.2 (Rahul Kansari) is the brother of the victim who has stated that on 08.01.2013 at 8:30 A.M. he was in his house when his brother informed him that he has been stabbed in the abdomen by Birju and Goutam. He went to Gurunanak Hospital with Mintu and saw the injuries on his brother. His brother was thereafter shifted to TMH. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that at the time of the incident he was in his house and he had not witnessed the incident.

7. P.W.3 (Raj Kansari) is the informant who has stated that on 31.12.2012 at 2:15 A.M. a dance programme celebrating the New Year was going on in Teacher's Colony when Goutam had snatched away his spectacles. When he asked Goutam to return his spectacles he had smashed it and scuffled with him and Bittu. On 01.01.2013, he and Bittu expressed their desire to Goutam to settle the dispute. On 04.01.2013, he and Bittu had gone for duty in Alishan Towers, Mango where there was a scuffle between Birju Mukhi and Bittu suffered injury on his head. On 06.01.2013, Goutam had called him over phone to come to Harijan School and when he and Bittu went to the said place Birju did not agree for a compromise. He has stated that on 08.01.2013, when he had gone for duty to Alishan Towers on the order of Goutam Birju had stabbed him. When he raised alarm people arrived, at which, the accused persons fled away. He had called his brother and the

Secretary of Alishan Towers Md. Sahid over mobile. He had gone to Gurunanak Hospital where he became unconscious. On the next day he was brought to TMH and when he regained consciousness his fardbeyan was recorded by the Police. He has proved the fardbeyan which has been marked at Exhibit-1/1.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he had not reported to the Police the incidents which had occurred on the first day and thereafter on 04.01.2013 and 06.01.2013. He had wanted to compromise the matter which was the reason for not reporting the incidents to the Police. He had confided to Paresh Mukhiya about the entire episode.

8. P.W.4 (Ramesh Nayak) did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile.

9. P.W.5 (Dr. Pratyush Prasad) was posted as a Medical Officer, in the Emergency Ward of TMH and on 08.01.2013 he had examined Raj Mukhi and had found the following injuries:

(i) Stab Injury:- Abdomen with intestine protruded outside.

He has proved the injury report which has been marked as Exhibit-3.

10. P.W.6 (Vijayendra @ Bittu Mukhi) has stated that the first incident is of 31.12.2012 at 2:15/2:20 A.M. There was a dance programme going on in Teacher's Colony on the occasion of New Year. Raj Kansari was with him. He has stated that Goutam Mukhi came and snatched the power glass of Raj Kansari and when he intervened he was abused and thrashed by him. On 01.01.2013, a compromise was effected. On 04.01.2013 at 9:30 A.M. Birju had called Raj Kansari to Alishan Towers, Mango to end the settlement and when he tried to intervene he was assaulted on his head. He has stated that on 06.01.2013 at 7:30 P.M. Goutam Mukhi and Birju had abused them over phone and asked him to come to the field of Harijan School. He and Raj had gone to the field when Birju stated about breaking the settlement. Both of

them thereafter returned home. On 08.01.2013 at 9:30 A.M. the brother of Raj had come and informed him that Birju has stabbed Raj. He had gone to Gurunanak Hospital from where Raj Kansari was shifted to TMH. He was in an unconscious state. He has proved his signature in the fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-1/2.

In cross-examination, he has deposed that he was not present at the place of occurrence when the incident had occurred.

11. P.W.7 (Anupan Singh @ Anup Singh) has stated that he had come to know about a scuffle between some boys where knife was used.

In cross-examination, he has denied on oath having any knowledge regarding the incident.

12. The statement of the accused were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the incident.

13. It has been submitted by Ms. Ashwini Priya, learned Amicus curiae for the appellants that the prosecution case is based upon the evidence of P.W.3. The false implication of the appellants cannot be ruled out on account of the enmity existing between the appellants and P.W.3 which is borne out from the evidence of P.W.3 himself. Moreover, in absence of any corroborative evidence and on account of the previous enmity no reliance can be placed upon the evidence of P.W.3.

14. Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P.P. has submitted that the evidence of P.W.7 is not tainted with falsity and the same gets corroborated with the evidence of P.W.6 who was also at the receiving end of the wrath of the appellants.

15. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.

16. The fardbeyan would reveal that the precursor to the stabbing of the informant by the appellant no. 2 is the incident

which occurred in the midnight of 31.12.2012 when a scuffle had taken place between the appellants and the informant and P.W.6. The appellants continued to pester them and the offer of a compromise by the informant was brushed aside and instead the animosity flared up culminating in the appellant no. 2 stabbing the informant in his abdomen. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.6 reveal that they were at the receiving end of the abuses and assault without there being any provocation from their side. P.W.3 being at the receiving end of such conduct on the part of the appellants sought for a compromise in order to avoid further humiliation. The effort made by P.W.3 and P.W.6 seems not to have deterred the appellants in continuing with their tirade and finally on the instigation of appellant no. 1 the appellant no. 2 had stabbed P.W.3. The earlier incidents of violence were not reported to the Police by P.W.3 as he wanted to compromise the matter and it seems that instead of accepting such proposal the same emboldened the appellants to cause bodily injury upon P.W.3. The evidence of P.W.3 does not suffer from any infirmity and the defence has been unable to extract any contradiction from P.W.3 to empower its case. Even the medical evidence is corroborative to the ocular evidence. The learned trial court had correctly appreciated the evidence on record while convicting the appellants. We do not find any reason to conclude otherwise and consequently we dismiss this appeal.

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi Dated, the 9th day of September, 2024.

A. Sanga/NAFR