Jharkhand High Court
Birendra Bhuian @ Putu Bhuian vs The State Of Jharkhand on 12 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.729 of 2014
------
(Arising out of judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2014 and order
of sentence dated 20.09.2014, passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2011, arising
out of Dhurki P.S. Case No.46 of 2010)
------
Birendra Bhuian @ Putu Bhuian, son of Late Ram Nath Bhuian,
resident of Village Khutia, Pathan Tola, P.S. Dhurki, P.O. Dhurki,
District Garhwa, Jharkhand. ... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. ... ... Respondent
------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
-------
For the Appellant : Mr. B.M. Tripathi, Sr. Advocate, with
Mr. Naveen Kr. Jaiswal, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.
------
JUDGMENT
CAV on 27.08.2024 Pronounced on : 12/09/2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.:
This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the
appellant being aggrieved by the judgment of conviction dated
18.09.2014 and order of sentence dated 20.09.2014, passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa, in Sessions Trial
No.32 of 2011, arising out of Dhurki P.S. Case No.46 of 2010,
whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offence
alleged to have been committed under Section 302 IPC. He was
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/- and
in default of payment of fine amount, further to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for three months.
2. Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted
that from injuries it would be clear that the manner in which the
occurrence had taken place, as narrated by the prosecution
witnesses is not correct. He further stated that eye-witnesses i.e.
P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 could not be said to have seen the occurrence as
they stated that they were not present at the place of occurrence.
The informant is admittedly a hearsay witness and two witnesses
Sukhlal Gaur and Ramjanam Bhuian have been declared hostile.
Rest of the evidence contradicts each other and due to land dispute
this appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. He tried to
raise a dispute about the presence of the eye-witnesses on the
place of occurrence when the alleged incident had occurred to
create doubt in the mind of this Court about their authenticity.
3. Learned A.P.P. opposes the prayer and submits that P.W.-
3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 are eye witnesses who are present at the place
of occurrence and they had seen how the incident had occurred. It
is the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted by a sharp
cutting weapon on the neck and the medical evidence also proved
the ocular evidence.
4. The case of the prosecution as delineated in the First
Information Report on the basis of the fardbayan of informant-
Ramchandra Bhuian, is that on 20.09.2010, at 07:30 P.M. evening,
one Ramnarayan Gaur came running to his house and told him that
a serious misadventure has taken place. He further told that one
Birendra Bhuian has assaulted his brother Anmesh Bhuian @ Lala
Bhuian with tangi on the back of his head, as a result of which
brother of the informant succumbed to death and when he chased
Birendra, he fled away. The body of the deceased - Anmesh Bhuian
@ Lala Bhuian is lying at his courtyard. After getting this
information, when the informant along with his family member went
to the place of occurrence, he saw that his brother was lying dead
in the courtyard of Ramnarayan Gaur and large quantity of blood
oozed out of the body. On enquiry, Ramjanam Bhuian, Sukhlal Gaur
and Ramnarayan Gaur, told that one lamp was burning in the
courtyard and all three of them were gossiping with each other.
When Anmesh Bhuian came towards the wife of Ramnarayan Gaur
and bowed his head in obeisance, then suddenly Birendra Bhuian
came from the back and gave a blow of tangi on the back of the
neck of the deceased. Thereafter he fled away with tangi. They tied
patti on the head of brother of the informant but by then he died.
They told that there was a previous enmity with Ram Nath Bhuian.
The deceased brother of the informant returned home from work
prior to 2-3 days of the incident and in order to meet the family
members, he went to the house of Ramnarayan Gaur, but owing to
previous enmity, Birendra Bhuian @ Putu Bhuian, killed brother of
the informant with tangi in the courtyard, and fled away.
5. On the basis of said fardbayan, Dhurki P.S. Case No.46
of 2010 was registered against the appellant for offence under
Section 302 IPC and investigation was undertaken and finally
charge sheet bearing No.70/2010 was submitted against the
appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Garhwa, took
cognizance of offence against the appellant and committed the case
to the Court of Sessions.
6. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 09 witnesses
were examined by the prosecution who are as follows:-
i. P.W.-1 :- Sukhlal Gaur
ii. P.W.-2 :- Ramjanam Bhuian
iii. P.W.-3 :- Aklu Bhuian
iv. P.W.-4 :- Jal Kunwar Devi
v. P.W.-5 :- Kailash Gaur
vi. P.W.-6 :- Ramchandra Bhuian
vii. P.W.-7 :- Dr. Mohan Prasad
viii. P.W.-8 :- Tetru Oraon
ix. P.W.-9 :- Bania Tubid
7. P.W.-1 namely Sukhlal Gaur has not supported the
prosecution story and turned hostile.
P.W.-2 namely Ramjanam Bhuian has not supported the
prosecution story and turned hostile.
P.W.-3 namely Aklu Bhuian, deposed that on the date of
incident, Ramnarayan Gaur, Sukhlal Gaur and Ramjanam Bhuian,
were gossiping with each other. Anmesh @ Lala Bhuian (deceased)
who was his brother, was also present there. When Jal Kunwar Devi
- wife of Ramnarayan Gaur came out of her room, the deceased got
up from cot, moved towards her and bent to pay respect, but
suddenly the appellant- Birendra Bhuian came there and assaulted
him with tangi on the backside of his neck, resulting in his death.
Blood was oozing out. When Narayan Gaur chased the appellant, he
ran away to maize farm. In his cross-examination, he stated that at
the time of incident he was in his house.
P.W.-4 - Jal Kunwar Devi, deposed that on the date of
incident she was at home and Ramnarayan Gaur, Sukhlal Gaur and
Ramjanam Bhuian were sitting on cot. In the meantime, Anmesh @
Lala Bhuian came towards her and bowed his head in obeisance.
Suddenly, Birendra Bhuian slit the neck of the deceased by tangi, as
a result of which he writhed and died. When her family chased him
then he ran to maize farm. In her cross-examination, she stated
that Narayan Gaur informed about the incident to Ram Chandra
Bhuian and the fact that Birendra Bhuian killed Anmesh Lala
Bhuian. She deposed that she can't say whether there was previous
enmity between Birendra Bhuian and the deceased or not.
P.W.-5 Kailash Gaur, deposed that Ramnarayan Gaur,
Sukhlal Gaur and Ramjanam Bhuian, and Anmesh, were sitting on
the cot and gossiping in the courtyard of Ramnarayan Gaur. When
Animesh called Jal Kunwar Devi and bowed his head in front of her
to pay respect, then suddenly Birendra Bhuian came and attacked
Anmesh on back of his neck by tangi. Anmesh after sustaining
injury on head started writhing and died. In his cross-examination,
he stated that on the next day of incident, police came and had
taken the dead body.
P.W.-6 Ramchandra Bhuian, deposed that at the time of
incident, Ramnarayan Gaur came running towards to him and told
that Birendra Bhuian assaulted his brother Anmesh @ Lala Bhuian
on the back of his neck with tangi and he is writhing. He deposed
that when he went with his wife and mother to the house of
Ramnarayan Gaur, they saw that the dead body of Anmesh was
lying at the courtyard of Ramnarayan. He further deposed that his
brother went to meet members of family of said Ramnarayan and
when he bent to pay respect to the wife of Ramnarayan Gaur,
suddenly Birendra Bhuian came with tangi in his hand and gave a
tangi blow on the neck of the deceased due to which the deceased
died. He submits that on the next day of incident he went to the
local police station and informed the occurrence. The police
recorded his fardbayan. The police came at the place of occurrence
and recovered tangi from the house of Birendra Bhuian. In cross-
examination, he denied the suggestion that for usurping land, he
gave false evidence.
P.W.-7 is the Doctor who had conducted post-mortem on
the dead body of Anmesh @ Lala Bhuian. He deposed that during
post-mortem examination, he had found following injuries on the
dead body:-
"Incised wound present over left side of neck 8
x 2 ½ x bone deep - neurovascular Bundle and neck
muscles were severed."
He opined that death was due to shock and haemorrhage
due to neck injury caused by sharp cutting weapon. In his cross-
examination, he states that he cannot say as what was the position
and time on which deceased was assaulted. He stated that there is
no other injury except in the portion of neck. This injury may be
caused by fall on a sharp cutting weapon. He opined that he did not
find any alcoholic smell on the dead body at the time of post-
mortem examination.
P.W.8 - Tetru Oraon who was the Investigating Officer,
deposed that he had inspected the place where the incident had
taken place and recorded the statements of the concerned
witnesses in the case diary. He stated that he seized one tangi from
the house of the appellant which was marked as Ext.4 and prepared
the inquest report which was marked as Ext.5. Thereafter he sent
the dead body for post-mortem examination and after getting the
report of post-mortem examination, he submitted the charge-sheet
against the accused- Birendra Bhuian. He identified the formal
F.I.R. and the fardbayan which were marked as Ext.6 and Ext.7
respectively.
In his cross-examination he stated that he had neither
prepared the map of place of occurrence nor took any photo of dead
body. He stated that the seized tangi belonged to the accused-
Birendra Bhuian.
P.W.-9 Bania Tubid, proved the materials - exhibit i.e.
tangi which was marked as material Ext.I, recovered and seized by
the Investigating Officer.
8. Several documentary evidences were also exhibited
which are as here under:-
i. Ext.-1 :- signature of Ramchandra Bhuian
ii. Ext.1/1 :- signature of Aklu Bhuian on fardbayan
iii. Ext.2 :-signature of Ramchandra Bhuian on seizure list
iv. Ext.3 :- post-mortem report
v. Ext.4 :- seizure list
vi. Ext.5 :- inquest report
vii. Ext.6 :- formal F.I.R.
viii. Ext.7 :- fardbayan
ix. Ext.8 :- Challan Photo Copy
9. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement under
Section 313 of Cr.P.c. was recorded. The defence has not examined
any witness on his behalf.
10. After hearing both the parties and considering the
material on record, the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Garhwa, held
the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section
302 IPC and sentenced the appellant as mentioned hereinabove.
11. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find
that there is nothing on record to disbelieve that the eye-witnesses.
There is nothing to infer that they were not present at the place of
occurrence. Though, they had stated that they have gone for work
but the evidence suggest that at the time when the occurrence had
taken place, they were present.
12. The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.-7) suggest that the
death is homicidal. Incised wound on the neck was detected by the
Doctor. He also found that the neurovascular bundle and neck
muscles were severed. The cause of death is also due to the said
injuries which were caused by sharp cutting weapon. From the
medical evidence, it is clear that it is a case of homicidal death.
P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 were present at the place of occurrence.
Though it was evening yet in the evidence it has come that a lamp
was burning and the parties were known to each other. This fact
gathered from the evidence, eliminates any doubt about the identity
of the accused.
13. P.W.-3 stated that he along with others and the deceased
were gossiping and when the wife of Ram Narayan Gaur came out
from her room, the deceased got up from the cot and went near her
and went to pay respect but suddenly this appellant came there and
assaulted him with an axe on the neck resulting in his death. P.W.-4
who was known to the wife of Ram Narayan Gaur supported the
aforesaid version and stated that the deceased came towards her
and bowed his head in obeisance when suddenly this appellant
came and struck with the tangi (axe) on his neck and ran away.
P.W.-5 Kailash Gaur also deposed in the same manner. There is
nothing in their evidence to disbelieve them. Their statement is
consistent which was not shaken.
14. The axe which was the murder weapon was also
produced before the Court. There is nothing which can be culled out
from the evidence which could remotely suggest that this appellant
has been falsely implicated. The evidence of this eye witness are
overwhelming and there is no iota of doubt from their evidence that
it is this appellant who has committed the murder of the deceased.
15. The Trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence
and has come to a correct finding that it is this appellant only, who
has committed the murder.
16. Thus, we concur with the judgment of the Trial Court.
the judgment of conviction dated 18.09.2014 and order of sentence
dated 20.09.2014, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-II,
Garhwa, in Sessions Trial No.32 of 2011, are hereby affirmed.
17. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
18. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court
concerned.
(ANANDA SEN, J.)
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J : I agree.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
Dated:- 12/09/2024
NAFR / Prashant
