Jharkhand High Court
Ratan Horo vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 September, 2024
Author: Ananda Sen
Bench: Ananda Sen
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.281 of 2013
-----
(Against the judgment of conviction dated 25.07.2006 and order of sentence
dated 28.07.2006 passed by learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Khunti in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 1986)
----
Ratan Horo, son of late Paulus Horo, resident of village Dumargari
(Tangratoli), PO and PS Karra, District Khunti (Jharkhand)
... Appellant(s).
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... Respondent(s).
------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.
------
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Deomani, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, PP
.........
JUDGMENT
CAV on : 29.08.2024 Pronounced on : 18 /09/2024
Per Ananda Sen, J.: 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 25.07.2006 and order of sentence dated
28.07.2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 471 of 1986 whereby and
whereunder learned 1st Additional Judicial Commissioner,
Khunti convicted the appellant under Sections 452/302/120B of
the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo RI for life
under Sections 302/120B of the Indian Penal Code and RI for 7
years under Section 452 of the IPC.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there
are no materials to convict this appellant in this case. It has been
submitted that the entire occurrence had taken place at the dead
of night and admittedly there was no source of light in which
one could identify this appellant. So far as the identification is
concerned PW3 could not be believed as the said PW3 during
investigation did not narrate before the investigating officer that
he had identified this appellant in the light of torch when the
occurrence had taken place. There is no other witness who had
seen this appellant committing the offence nor has seen this
appellant in the vicinity of the place of occurrence. He submits
that on this basis the appellant should be acquitted.
4. The learned counsel for the State submits that PW3 is an
injured witness who was assaulted by this appellant. It is this
appellant who had entered the room and had committed murder
of three persons only to take revenge. PW2 is an eye-witness
who had seen the occurrence and the assailants were known to
her thus there is no question of mistaken identity.
5. The case of the prosecution based on the fardbeyan of
Baghrai Munda (informant) is that brother of the informant
Dasrath Munda purchased one Tamarind tree from Joseph Horo.
On 07.04.1986 Dasrath Munda went to collect fruit of tamarind
and stayed in the house of Josheph Horo when in the night three
accused murdered Dasrath Munda, Pyari Horo and Sushma
Horo. Nirmal Horo, son of Joshep Horo was injured in the
occurrence.
6. After investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted
chargesheet against the appellant for the offence punishable
under Section 302/307/452/120B of the Indian Penal.
7. On the basis of chargesheet and materials available on
record cognizance was taken and case was committed to Court
of Session who transferred the case to 1st Additional Judicial
Commissioner, Khunti where charges were framed under
Sections 452/302/120B and 307/120B of the Indian Penal Code
and trial proceeded.
8. To prove the prosecution case, altogether 4 witnesses were
examined by the prosecution, who are:-
i. PW1 :- Bishwa Munda
ii. PW2 :- Sunita Horo
iii. PW3 :- Nirmal Horo
iv. PW4 :- Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sandilya
9. PW1 (Bishwa Munda) has stated that the occurrence is of
19 years and 2/3 months earlier. It was Tuesday when he was
collecting mahua in his village when some students returning
from the school informed him that in the house of Josheph Horo
three murders have been committed and one boy was injured.
On reaching with other villagers he had seen his brother Dasrath
Munda's dead body in the ground whose head was cut from the
side of ear. Dead body of Pyari Horo was also there whose wrist
was cut. He also saw dead body of Sushma Horo which was
lying on the ground. The injured Nirmal Horo was sent to
Bariyatu. He stated that they have taken three dead bodies to the
Khunti hospital for their postmortem. Nirmal Mahto after
returning the village stated that Ratan Horo, Panti Kujur, Ashok
Kujur has killed Dasrath, Pyari, Sushma and injured him as one
month earlier Ratan's father was killed and they are taking
revenge.
PW2 (Sunita Horo) stated that on 7/8-04-1986 in the night
at about 10:00 PM Dashrath Munda, Pyari Horo, Sushma Horo,
Niral Horo, Anita Horo, Jidan Horo and she herself was sleeping
in the house when three persons after breaking the door entered
the house and killed Dashrath, Pyari, Sushma and injured
Nirmal and when she and other children started crying they
threatened us to keep quite. In cross examination she stated that
there is dispute between them and Ratan regarding land and
tamarind tree.
PW3 (Nirmal Horo) stated that the occurrence is of
08.04.1986. In the night at about 10:00 PM when he along with
Dashrath Munda, Pyari Horo, Sushma Horo, Sunita Horo, Anit
Horo and Jidan Hor were sleeping in the house, three persons
after breaking the door entered the house and killed Dashrath
Munda, Pyari Horo and Sushma Horo. He also stated that they
also injured him. He identified Ratan Horo from the torch used
by the accused persons. In the cross examination he stated that
the fact that he saw Ratan in torch light was not stated by him
before the police.
PW4 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sandilya, Incharge Medical Officer
of Khunti Sub-Divisional Hospital proved the three postmortem
reports in carbon copies prepared by Dr. S. K. Sinha which was
marked as Exhibit 1, 1/1 and 1/2.
The postmortem report of deceased Pyari Horo disclosed
six ante mortem sharp cutting injury.
The postmortem report of deceased Shusma Horo
disclosed two ante mortem sharp cutting injury.
The postmortem report of deceased Dashrath Munda
shows four ante mortem sharp cutting injury.
In the opinion of the doctor the injuries were ante mortem
in nature in all three cases caused by sharp cutting weapon and
the death was due to hemorrhage and cardio respiratory failure.
10. From the evidence we find that the entire case is based on
the evidence of PW2 and PW3. This is a case where three persons
have been murdered.
The doctor who had conducted the postmortem on the
dead body of the deceased found sharp cutting injuries on the
deceased. The doctor opined that the injuries were ante mortem
in nature and the same were caused by sharp cutting weapon
and the death was due to hemorrhage and cardio respiratory
failure.
The nature of injury clearly suggests that the death is
homicidal. Thus the prosecution has proved the homicidal death
of the deceased.
So far as the involvement of this appellant is concerned this
case rests upon the testimony of the two witnesses, PW2 and
PW3. PW3 is the injured eye-witness who was also attacked and
PW2 is an eye-witness. From the evidence narrated above, it is
clear that PW2 had seen this appellant breaking open the door,
entering the room and committing murder of Dasrath Munda,
Pyari Horo and Sushma Horo. She also stated that Nirmal Horo
was injured by them and they were threatened by the appellant.
The genesis of the offence has also been mentioned by her which
is land dispute and dispute in respect of Tamarind tree. There is
nothing in the cross examination to discredit this witness.
PW3 is the injured witness. He also narrated in a similar
line how this appellant broke open the door and committed
murder of Dasrath Munda, Pyari Horo and Sushma Horo. He
clearly stated that he had identified Ratan Horo by the torch
light. Though he hasn't stated before the police that he saw the
appellant in the torch light, lightened by the appellant, but the
said statement is immaterial and it is a fact that he identified the
appellant. Being an injured witness his testimony should be kept
at a higher pedestal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
"Periyasamy vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police" reported
in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 314 held that the evidence of an
injured witness is considered to be on a higher pedestal than that
of a witness simplicitor.
11. From the cross examination, we couldn't find anything
material to discredit him. Thus from the statement of these two
witnesses the involvement of this appellant in the occurrence is
established. The prosecution has thus established the presence of
this appellant and involvement of this appellant in the crime.
The Trial Court has considered all these aspects and we find that
the Trial Court correctly after hearing the arguments and
appreciating the evidence found the appellant guilty and
convicted him under Section 452/302/34 of the Indian Penal
Code and sentenced him as aforesaid.
12. Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 281 of 2013 stands dismissed.
13. 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. - I agree.
(GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated : 18th Sept. 2024
Tanuj/
N.A.F.R.
