Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Karan Murmu @ Korno Murmu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) No.293 of 2015
Decided on : 26-04-2023
Section 302 - Conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - [Section 302] - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and medical evidence, and concludes that the prosecution has proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The court also highlights the legal principle that the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution case was based on the fardbeyan of the informant Arjun Hembram, the brother of the deceased Basi Murmu, recorded on 17.03.2011. The witnesses testified about the injuries on the deceased's body and the circumstances of her death. The accused denied the manner of occurrence and pleaded not guilty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt, supported by the eye witness account of the mother of the deceased and other witnesses. The court also emphasized the legal principle that the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Issues: The issues revolved around the prosecution's ability to prove the charge against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the legal burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the eye witness account of the mother of the deceased and other witnesses, as well as the medical evidence corroborating the injuries on the deceased's body. The court also emphasized the legal principle that the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila, convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appeal was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
The instant appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) read with Section 389(1) and (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment of conviction dated 04.04.2015 and order of sentence dated 07.04.2015 passed by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatsila in S.T.Case No.302 of 2011, whereby, the appellant has been found guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Upon hearing on the point of sentence, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for six months.
2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant Arjun Hembram, the brother of the deceased Basi Murmu, recorded on 17.03.2011 at 8:00 A.M., in the morning, at Horebera Tola, Manikdih by S.I. N.S. Dadel PW-5 the then O/C P.S. Dumaria wherein he has stated that he is resident of Kantasola, Tola Mankidih, P.S. Dumaria, Distt. East Singhbhum. His sister Basi Murmu (deceased) was married with Karno Murmu. Karno Murmu has two other wives also so, he always used to beat his sister and was trying to drive her out of the house. On several occasion the villagers have settled the matter. On Sunday at village Horebera, Tola Manikdih there was a family picnic, in which many villagers and family members have assembled. On Wednesday at about 11.30 A.M. Jitendra Tudu PW-10 and Ram Tudu PW-9 of village Katasola came and informed them about death of his sister Basi Murmu then he with his brother Homo Hembram PW-3, Shakla Hembram PW-1 Hikim Hemram PW-2, Karsha Hembram and Charwa Hembram PW-4 came to village Horebera Tola Manikdih and had seen dead body of his sister kept on a cot having injury of lathi on her chest, back, face and arm. On enquiry he came to know that Karno Murmu at about 5.00 P.M. has assaulted her and killed her with Lathi, Danda thereafter there was a village meeting which is the cause of delay in filing of the case.
On the basis of this information FIR against Karan Murmu @ Karo Murmu was instituted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
After completion of the investigation charge sheet was submitted against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and after commitment the case was sent to the court of Sessions.
The accused has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
3. The prosecution has examined altogether eleven witnesses to prove the case against the appellant namely, PW-1 Sakla Hembram, PW-2 Hikim Hembram, PW-3 Hamo Hembram, PW-4 Charwa Hembram, PW-5 Nayan Sukh Dadel investigating officer of the case, PW-6 Arjun Hembram, PW-7 Hisi Hembram, PW-8 Barsha Hembram, PW-9 Ram Tudu, PW-10 Jitendra Tudu, and PW-11 Dr. Ramchandra Soren.
The documents have also been exhibited which are Ext. 1 Inquest Report, Ext,. 2 Registration of fardbayan, Ext. 2/1 Fardbayan, Ext. 3 Formal FIR, Ext. 4 Postmortem Report, and Ext. "X" thumb impression of Arjun Hembram PW-6 on his fardbeyan marked for identification.
4. PW-1 Sakla Hembram has stated that Basi Murmu was his cousin sister and she was married with Karan Murmu (appellant). Karan Murmu has solemnized four marriages. He always used to beat Basi Murmu. He reached to Horobera village along with the villagers on information given by Ram Murmu and had seen dead body of Basi having injuries on her head, shoulder, chest and lips. He has further stated that Ram Murmu PW-9 informed him that Karan has killed his sister then they went to the house of his sister and had seen her dead body. On query Karan told that the deceased was not giving him food so he has beaten her and went to see Drama.
PW-2 Hikim Hembram has stated that he was informed by the villagers of Hore Bera about murder of Basi Murmu by Karan Murmu. On this information he went to Hore Bera and had seen d
The burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of any person lies upon that person, as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and any significant doubt arising from inconsistencies in evidence must benefit the accused.
The court upheld the conviction under IPC Section 302, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt without the accused providing an adeq....
The court established that eyewitness testimony, when corroborated by medical evidence, can be sufficient to uphold a conviction for murder, even in the presence of potential delays in filing an FIR.
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and a conviction cannot be based solely on the recovery of a murder weapon without corroborative evidence.
A conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code requires credible evidence beyond reasonable doubt, including corroborative evidence when relying on confessions or weapon recovery.
Burden of proof – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, whenever an incriminating question is posed to accused and he or she either evades response, or offers a response which is not true, then....
In cases of murder, eyewitness testimony can be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, even in the absence of forensic evidence, provided the testimony is credible and consistent.
The prosecution's successful establishment of the chain of events and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed the burden on the appellants to prove otherwise.
A conviction for murder requires reliable and corroborated evidence, particularly when based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness; contradictions and lack of corroboration can lead to the reversal o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
