Back
2016 Supreme(Jhk) 1349
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
PRADIP KUMAR MOHANTY AND ANANDA SEN, JJ.
Moti Ram Besra @ Moti Ram Basera - Appellant
Versus
State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 1397 of 2006
Decided On : 10-08-2016
For the Appellant: P.K. Mukhopadhyay & Ashish Kumar
For the Respondent: Awnish Shankar, A.P.P.
The credibility of eyewitnesses and the principle that close relatives are unlikely to falsely implicate an innocent person.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of the deceased, based on the prosecution's case that he assaulted the deceased with a lathi and an axe, resulting in the deceased's death. The defense denied the allegation.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found the appellant guilty based on the testimonies of eyewitnesses and the postmortem report, despite the defense's contentions.
Issues: The issues included the credibility of the eyewitnesses, the authenticity of the first information report, and the alleged suppression of material facts by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the eyewitnesses, stating that being interested witnesses does not automatically discredit their evidence. The court also cited the principle that close relatives are unlikely to falsely implicate an innocent person.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence against the appellant, ultimately dismissing the appeal.
1. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 5.7.2006 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhanbad in S.T. No. 284 of 2004/ 49 of 2004, whereby the appellant having been found guilty of the charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, besides a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief is that, on 29.11.2003 at about 8:15 a.m. the informant-Soban Besra (P.W.4) , wife of the deceased-Rabi Lal Besra, came at Tundi police station along with the dead body of her husband with the help of villagers and she gave her statement before the Officer In-charge of Tundi police station regarding the occurrence which is alleged to have occurred on 28.11.2003 at 6:00 p.m. in the house of the informant at Village Sinduari Tand and the same was written by Saheb Ram Besra-P.W.3. According to the prosecution case, while the deceased was scratching pumpkin at his house, the appellant, who is agnate of the deceased, came there with lathi and axe, and gave a lathi blow to the deceased, as a result of which the deceased fell down after assault. Thereafter, the appellant gave several blows to the deceased by means of tangi (axe) which hit on the head, side of the ear, temporal region and other parts of the body, as a result of which the deceased sustained injury. In the meantime, the informant, her son along with villagers went there in order to save the deceased and then the appellant fled away from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, the informant took the deceased to the clinic of Dr. Anil Kumar for treatment but during treatment the deceased succumbed to his injuries. Thereupon, the informant with the help of the villagers took the dead body of the deceased to the police station where the Officer In-charge of Tundi police station recorded her statement.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, Tundi P.S. Case No. 64 of 2003 was registered for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. After registering the case, the investigation was carried out and after preparing the inquest report (Ext.2/1) of the deceased, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination.
4. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and cognizance of the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the appellant and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The plea of the defence is completely denial of the allegation.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as 8 witnesses, including the doctor and the Investigating Officer. The trial court after appreciating the evidences of the prosecution witnesses and the materials available on record, found the appellant guilty for committing murder of the deceased and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge.
6. Based upon the evidences of the eye-witnesses, Mr. P.K. Mukhopadhyay, counsel for the appellant, has assailed the judgment of the learned court below on the following grounds:
(I) All the eye-witnesses are the interested witnesses and related to the deceased and their statements are not corroborated with the independent witness;
(II) The real version of the occurrence has not come to the surface, as the first information report is not the statement of the informant, which has been stated to the police, rather the same was written by one Saheb Ram Murmu-P.W.3;
(III) The prosecution has suppressed the material facts and the charge is defective inasmuch as the material object was not produced before the court;
(IV) There are major contradictions of the statements of the witnesses;
(V) No specific question was put to the appellant under Se
