Jharkhand High Court
Baijnath Rai vs The State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) on 14 January, 2025
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 341 of 1998 (P)
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.04.1998 (sentence passed on 30.04.1998) passed by Sri R.P. Verma,
learned Sessions Judge, Godda in connection with Sessions Case No. 38
of 1996]
---------
1. Baijnath Rai, S/o Late Sukdeo Rai
2. Etwari Rai, S/o Ghaighu Rai
3. Jai Jai Rai, S/o Huru Rai
4. Arjun Rai, S/o Baijnath Rai
5. Rajeshwar Rai, S/o Huru Rai
All resident of Village Rampur, P.S. Meharma, District-
Godda .... .... Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) .... .... Respondent
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Prabhat Singh, Amicus Curiae
For the State : Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, A.P.P.
---------
C.A.V. on 09/01/2025 Pronounced on 14/01/2025
Per Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.
Heard Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned Amicus Curiae
for the appellants and Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. for the
State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 29.04.1998 (sentence
passed on 30.04.1998) passed by Sri R.P. Verma, learned Sessions
Judge, Godda in connection with Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996,
whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted for
the offence punishable u/s 302/34 of the IPC and have been
sentenced to R.I. for life.
3. The prosecution case arises out of the fardbeyan of
Girija Kumari recorded on 07.10.1995, in which, it has been stated
that the father of the informant Sudhir Rai had gone to cut
bamboos and he saw Etwari Rai also cutting bamboos and on
objection a hot talk ensued between Sudhir Rai and Etwari Rai and
on hearing a commotion the informant had also gone to the said
place. In the meantime, Baijnath Rai, Arjun Rai, Rajeshwar Rai
and Jai Jai Rai reached and all were variously armed and they
started abusing the father of the informant. Baijnath Rai exhorted
the other accused persons to finish off Sudhir Rai, at which,
Rajeshwar Rai gave a lathi blow on the head of Sudhir Rai as a
result of which Sudhir Rai fell on the ground. As soon as Sudhir
Rai fell down Jai Jai Rai assaulted him on his head with a tangi
and all the accused persons indiscriminately started assaulting
him. On raising an alarm Rameshwar Rai, Bijendra Rai, Kuldip
Rai, Sudi Rai and others came rushing to the place of occurrence,
at which, the accused persons fled away. The villagers had taken
Sudhir Rai on a cot to Mahagama Hospital where on the way he
died. The reason for the occurrence is a land dispute.
Based on the aforesaid allegations Boarijor
(Lalmatia) P.S. Case No. 82 of 1995 was instituted u/s
147/149/302 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 Case No. 38 of 1996. Charge was framed against the
accused u/s 302/34 of the IPC which was read over and explained
to them in Hindi to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be
tried.
4. The prosecution has examined as many as five
witnesses in support of its case.
5. P.W.1 (Rameshwar Rai) has stated that on the
alarm raised by Sudhir Rai he went to the source of alarm where
he found Sudhir Rai unconscious lying in a pool of blood. Girija
Kumari, the daughter of Sudhir Rai was weeping nearby. Girija
Kumari had disclosed that Etwari Rai, Jai Jai Rai and Rajeshwar
Rai had come to cut bamboos and when Sudhir Rai objected they
assaulted him and fled away. Girija had disclosed that Baijnath Rai
was standing at a distance. Sudhir Rai was taken to the Hospital
but on the way he died.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that at 8:00
A.M. he had gone to cut grass and had returned back at 10:00-
10:30 A.M. When he heard an alarm he had gone to the house of
Sudhir Rai where Sudhir Rai was lying in a pool of blood. Girija
Kumari was also present. She was around 10 years of age at that
time. Several persons had assembled in the house of Sudhir Rai.
He has deposed that the Police Station is near to the Hospital
where Girija Kumari gave her fardbeyan.
6. P.W.2 (Dr. Mantu Kumar Tekriwal) was posted as a
Civil Assistant Surgeon in Sadar Hospital, Godda and on
08.10.1995 he had conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sudhir
Rai and had found the following:
(i) Incised wound over right side scalp from right
temporal to occipital area almost straight
direction forward-backward, size 8" x 1" x 1".
Bone was visible.
(ii) Incised wound over left side of occipital area size
2" x ½" x 1". Bone was visible.
(iii) Incised wound over occipital area size ½" x ½" x
1". Bone was visible.
(iv) Multiple abrasions over back of chest size
varying from ½" x ½" to 4" x ½".
The cause of death was opined to be due to shock
and haemorrhage as a result of the above mentioned antemortem
injuries specially Injury Nos. (i) to (iii). He has proved the post-
mortem report which has been marked as Exhibit-1.
7. P.W.3 (Bijendra Rai) has stated that he was
returning home after ploughing his land when Girija Kumari had
raised a cry of alarm, at which, he rushed to the said place and
found the father of Girija Kumari lying on the ground. He also saw
Jai Jai Rai, Etwari Rai, Baijnath Rai, Arjun Rai and Rajeshwar Rai
fleeing away. Etwari had a Daba, Jai Jai Rai a Kulhari, Baijnath
Rai a lathi and Arjun Rai as well as Rajeshwar Rai had lathis in
their possession. Girija had disclosed that all the accused persons
had committed the assault and had fled away. She had disclosed
that Rajeshwar Rai had assaulted Sudhir Rai with a lathi, Jai Jai
Rai with a Kulhari and Etwari Rai with a Daba had also committed
assault upon him. He and the others had taken Sudhir Rai to the
Hospital and before reaching the Hospital he had breathed his last.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that when
Girija Kumari raised an alarm he rushed to the house of Sudhir
Rai where Rameshwar Rai and Girija Kumari were found present.
Rameshwar Rai had taken Girija Kumari to his house.
8. P.W.4 (Girija Kumari) is the informant and
daughter of the deceased who has stated that Binodi Rai is her
maternal grandmother and after the death of her mother the lands
of Binodi Rai were being tilled by her father. She has stated that
Etwari Rai had gone to cut the bamboos belonging to her father
and when her father objected Baijnath Rai instigated the others to
commit assault upon her father. Rajeshwar Rai had assaulted his
father with a lathi on head and resultantly he fell down on the
ground. Jai Jai Rai assaulted him with a Kulhari on head, Etwari
Rai with a Daba had assaulted on the head and Arjun Rai as well
as Baijnath Rai assaulted him with Lathis. She was at the place of
occurrence when she raised alarm and Rameshwar Rai and
Bijendra Rai came along with others and had taken her father to
Mahagama Hospital. Before reaching the Hospital her father
succumbed to his injuries. She had thereafter gone to the Police
Station where her fardbeyan was recorded.
In cross-examination, she has deposed that at the
time of the incident she was preparing food in the Kitchen, when
she heard a cry of alarm, at which, she left the Kitchen and came
outside.
9. P.W.5 (Baijnath Prasad Singh) was posted at
Lalmatia P.S. as Sub-Inspector of Police and on 07.10.1995 he had
recorded the fardbeyan of Girija Kumari. He has proved the
fardbeyan which has been marked as Exhibit-2. He has proved the
endorsement on the fardbeyan as well as the formal FIR which
have been marked as Exhibits- 3 and 4 respectively. He had
started the investigation and recorded the restatement of the
informant, inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the
inquest report which has been proved and marked as Exhibit-5. He
has proved the seizure list of blood stained earth, piece of bamboo
and cloth which has been marked as Exhibit-6. The place of
occurrence is at village Katiyari between the residential house of
the informant in a tilled field. Blood was found at the said place
and there were signs of footsteps. He had recorded the statement of
the witnesses, obtained the post-mortem report and on the order of
the superior authority had submitted charge-sheet.
In cross-examination, he has deposed that Bijendra
Rai had not stated before him that Girija Kumari had disclosed
about the five assailants committing the murder of her father.
10. The statements of the accused were recorded u/s
313 Cr.P.C., in which, they have denied their complicity in the
commission of murder.
11. It has been submitted by Mr. Prabhat Singh,
learned Amicus Curiae for the appellants that the prosecution case
rests upon the solitary eye-witness account of P.W.4. However, her
evidence suffers from incongruities if considered in the context of
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. Nothing incriminating has been
recovered from the appellants and they have been implicated only
on account of previous enmity. As per P.W.2, the informant was
aged about 10 years at the time of the incident but the
precautionary measures which are to be taken by the learned trial
court to verify her competency to depose seems to have been
dispensed with by the learned trial court which makes the evidence
of P.W.2 redundant.
12. Mrs. Kumari Rashmi, learned A.P.P. for the State
has submitted that the indiscriminate assault as disclosed by
P.W.2 has been fully corroborated in the medical report and on
consideration of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3 the evidence of
P.W.4 gets full corroboration.
13. We have heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and have also perused the Trial Court Records.
14. The prosecution has projected P.W.4, the informant
as the prime witness who in her fardbeyan had stated about
hearing of a quarrel between her father and Etwari Rai which
exploded into a concerted assault upon the father of P.W.4 by the
appellants and which ultimately proved fatal. In her cross-
examination P.W.4 has deposed that she was in the Kitchen
cooking when she heard an alarm, at which, she rushed out. The
person who immediately arrived at the place of occurrence was
P.W.2 on hearing the panic stricken sound of the deceased Sudhir
Rai. The evidence of P.W.2 suggests that he rushed to the place of
occurrence at the blink of an eyelid but surprisingly enough he had
neither seen the assault nor had he seen the assailants fleeing
away. His assertion of the appellants being involved in the murder
of Sudhir Rai stems from and revolves around the purported
disclosure of the events made to him by P.W.4. The evidence of
P.W.3 also reveals that when he arrived at the place of occurrence
only P.W.2 and P.W.4 were found present and, therefore, P.W.2
being the first person to arrive at the scene of murder gets
substantiated. It would also rule out the contention of P.W.3 that
he had seen the appellants fleeing away in view of no such
assertion made by P.W.2 who was the first person besides P.W.4 to
arrive at the place of occurrence. The evidence of a solitary eye-
witness cannot be discarded if the same inspires confidence and
the surrounding circumstances are supportive of such evidence
but as we have noted above the evidence of P.W.3 seems to suggest
otherwise in absence of any corroboration at least even certifying
the presence of the appellants near the place of occurrence. It
would also be interesting to note that the assailants had not
resorted to a toned down assault limiting the period of such
assault but a full-fledged pounding of the father of the informant
with various arms which would have consumed time and which
further more makes the evidence of P.W.4 doubtful as P.W.2 has
not been whispered about seeing the appellants in the vicinity of
the place of occurrence. The learned trial court has not appreciated
the materials available on record which prove the innocence of the
appellants and after giving our anxious consideration to the entire
facets of the case, we come to the conclusion that the prosecution
has miserably fail to prove its case and consequently, we set aside
the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
29.04.1998 (sentence passed on 30.04.1998) passed by Sri R.P.
Verma, learned Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 38 of
1996.
15. This appeal is allowed.
16. Since the appellants are on bail, they are
discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.
17. Before parting with this judgment, we must
appreciate the assistance rendered by Mr. Prabhat Singh, learned
Amicus Curiae and we direct the Member Secretary, High Court
Legal Services Committee to extend the stipulated fees to Mr.
Prabhat Singh, learned Amicus Curiae within a period of two weeks
from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
18. Office is directed to ensure that a copy of this
judgment be served upon the Member Secretary, High Court Legal
Services Committee immediately and forthwith.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
Dated, the 14th day of January, 2025.
A. Sanga /-
