Back
2014 Supreme(Jhk) 382
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
D.N. PATEL AND AMITAV K. GUPTA, JJ.
Athanas Munda - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cri. (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1331 of 2013
Decided On : March 12, 2014
Ms. Priya Shrestha, amicus curiae, for the appellant.
Mrs. Anita Sinha, A.P.P., for the respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on consistent and reliable eyewitness accounts, corroborated by medical evidence, to uphold the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Murder - Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Summary: The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, and the deposition of the appellant-accused. The court found that the eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 provided consistent and reliable accounts of the incident, corroborated by the medical evidence given by PW 7. The court upheld the decision of the trial court, dismissing the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-accused appealed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, based on the murder of the deceased Radhi Devi. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3 provided consistent and reliable accounts of the incident, corroborated by the medical evidence given by PW 7. The court upheld the decision of the trial court, dismissing the appeal.
Issues: The issues included major omissions, contradictions, and improvements in the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, delay in lodging the F.I.R., and inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistent and reliable accounts of the incident provided by the eye-witnesses PW 2 and PW 3, along with the corroborative medical evidence given by PW 7, to uphold the decision of the trial court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision rendered by the trial court in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001.
Per D.N. Patel, J.-This Cr. Appeal has been listed for its final hearing looking to the period of custody of this appellant. Last time when this matter was enlisted, counsel for the appellant was not present and this Cr. Appeal was adjourned for today. Today when the matter is called out, counsel for the appellant is again absent. Counsel for the appellant, namely Shri Shashank Shekhar, amicus curiae, was appointed by this Court by virtue of order dated 16th September, 2003 because this appeal was preferred from jail. Now because of his consistent absenteeism, we hereby appoint advocate Ms. Priya Shrestha, who is on the panel of Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority and who is present in this Court and ready to argue out the case; as an amicus curiae to assist the Court on behalf of the appellant.
2. Present appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused against the judgment of conviction dated and order of sentence both dated 24th May, 2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Trial No. 43 of 2001 whereby the present appellant-accused has been punished for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
3. CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
On 05.10.1999 at 15.00 hours the informant Purandhar Ganjhu gave fardbeyan to police that on 04.10.1999 at about 01.00 p.m. his mother Radhi Devi (deceased) had gone along with Chauti Devi (PW 2), Athunas Munda (appellant-accused), Parvati Kumari (PW 3) and Guruwari Devi to graze goat and ox. At about 05.00 p.m., Chauti Devi and Parvati Kumari informed the informant that Athunas Munda had killed his mother Radhi Devi with tangi (Axe) at Road Tarnh and dead body was lying there. Thereafter informant along with Birsa Ganjhu, Chander Pradhan and Sudarshan Ganju went to see his mother and in the way at Road Tarnh, he found the dead body of his mother Radhi Devi aged about 60 years having cut wound above the right side eye and left cheek and dead body was lying in pool of blood. Then informant called other persons of his tola and dead body was protected. On next day villagers asked that after taking meal they would go to police station to inform about the occurrence because to go to police station, which is at large distance, they have to go through the forest and mountain by walking. Thereafter, when the informant along with villagers were going to inform the police, then Jamadar of Police Station with his staff came to the house of informant and informant gave his statement. The informant further alleged that the reason of occurrence informed by Chauti Devi and Parwati Kumari that there was altercation between Radhi Devi (deceased) and Athunas Munda (appellant-accused) during the grazing of animal and Athunas Munda assaulted informant's mother with tangi (Axe) and killed his mother.
Seven witnesses were examined by the prosecution
PW 1 Rajendra Ganjhu He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.1.
PW 2 Chauti Devi She is the eye-witness of the occurrence.
PW 3 Parvati Devi She is the eye-witness of the occurrence.
PW 4 Chaitu Ganjhu He has proved his signature in the seizure-list of blood stained tangi (Axe) i.e. marked as Ext. 2 and he has also proved his signature in the fardbeyan i.e. marked as Ext.3
PW 5 Madhu Pradhan He has proved his signature in the Inquest report i.e. marked as Ext.1/1.
PW 6 Albert Munda He is the formal witness who has proved his thumb mark in the seizure-list.
PW 7 Dr. Krishandeo Choudhary He is the doctor who has conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of Smt. Radhi Devi and has proved the post-mortem report and his signature in the post-mortem report i.e. marked as Exts. 4 and 4/1.
4. Counsel for the appellant has argued out the case at length and the counsel for the appellant has taken this Court to the F.I.R., deposition of the prosecution witnesses including PW
