Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu - Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.806 of 2017
Decided On : 24-05-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - IPC SECTION 302 - The court discussed Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to punishment for murder. The key legal provision interpreted was the necessity of direct evidence for conviction in murder cases. The court emphasized that eyewitness testimony, particularly from the informant who had a close relationship with the deceased, was credible despite challenges regarding visibility during the incident. The court concluded that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, leading to the affirmation of the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Doman Murmu, was convicted for the murder of Dhanai Kisku, the former husband of the informant, Sonmuni Baskey. The incident occurred on the night of August 10, 2011, when Dhanai was stabbed in the chest while sleeping in the same room as Sonmuni. Sonmuni claimed to have seen Doman fleeing the scene after the stabbing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the testimony of Sonmuni Baskey credible, despite the defense's arguments regarding the darkness of the night and the lack of motive. The court held that the direct evidence provided by Sonmuni, corroborated by other witnesses, was sufficient to establish Doman's guilt. The court also noted that the absence of forensic evidence did not undermine the prosecution's case due to the strength of eyewitness accounts.
Issues: The main issues were whether the eyewitness testimony was reliable given the circumstances of the incident, whether the lack of motive affected the prosecution's case, and whether the failure to send the dagger for forensic analysis was fatal to the prosecution's claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that direct evidence from eyewitnesses is paramount in murder cases, and the credibility of such witnesses can outweigh concerns about visibility or motive. The court also clarified that the absence of forensic evidence does not automatically invalidate a conviction when there is strong eyewitness testimony.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for Doman Murmu under Section 302 of the IPC were upheld.
JUDGMENT :
Subhash Chand, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellants against the impugned Judgment of conviction dated 6th March, 2017 and Order of sentence dated 7th March, 2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dumka in Sessions Trial No.08 of 2012, whereby, the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the said offence along with fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, the appellant was further directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that the statement of Sonmuni Baskey was recorded on 11th August 2011 at 8 o’ clock by the police officer of police station Dumka Town wherein the allegations are made that the informant has been residing at the house of her maternal uncle Deblal Kisku since her infancy. At the house of her maternal uncle, she was having friendship with a person, namely, Nesh Kisku @ Dhanai Kisku and both resided in the house of maternal uncle and about two years ago, Nesh Kisku went to Assam for earning livelihood and thereafter Doman Murmu became her friend and he used to visit at the house of her maternal uncle. After two years, when Nesh Kisku @ Dhanai Kisku came back from Assam, he again began to reside with her. During that period, Doman used to visit her. In the meantime, she, her maternal uncle, maternal aunt and Nesh Kisku @ Dhanai Kisku, all went to Bengal for earning livelihood. On 10th August, 2011 at 4 o’ clock, all came from Bengal to their village and after having food, all went to sleep. She and Nesh Kisku @ Dhanay Kiski both slept in one room while her maternal uncle and maternal aunt slept in another room. In between 10-11 o’ clock of night, Nesh Kisku @ Dhanai Kisku screamed and hearing his screaming, she awoke and saw Doman Murmu fleeing away from the room. She also saw the dagger which was stabbed in the chest of Dhanai Kisku and she took out the dagger from his chest and throw the same thereon in the house. Her maternal uncle and maternal aunt also awoke. Nesh Kisku @ Dhanay Kisku was rushed to the Sadar Hospital, Dumka in injured condition with the help of villagers and during treatment, Nesh Kisku died. On this Fardbeyan, the thumb impression of Sonmuni Baskey and thumb impression of the Deblal Kisku as a witness was also taken.
4. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 204 of 2011 was registered with the police station Saraiyahat Hansdiha District Dumka under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against Doman Murmu (the appellant herein). The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against said accused for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
5. The learned court of Magistrate took cognizance on the charge-sheet and the offence alleged being triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed for trial to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Dumka.
6. The Court of Sessions Judge, Dumka framed charge against the accused Doman Murmu @ Ramdhu Murmu under Sections 302 of the I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to accused, who denied the charge and claimed for trial.
7. On behalf of the prosecution to prove the charge against the accused persons in oral evidence examined P.W.1-Sonmuni Baskey (the informant), P.W.2-Deblal Kisku, P.W.3-Churki Hembrom, P.W.4-Munsi Kisku, P.W.5-Shyam Soren, P.W.6-Kandan Murmu, P.W.7-Bablu Marandi, P.W.8-Thakur Murmu, P.W.9-Shiv Charan Kisku, P.W. 10- Prakash Marandi, P.W.-11 Player Kisku (the I.O. of the case) and P.W. 12-Dr. Shailendra Kumar.
8. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced Ext.1 signature of witness Shyam Soren on seizure list, Ext.1/1 signature of witness Kandan Murmu on seizure list, Ext.2 Forwarding with signature of witness Player Kisku on fardbeyan, E
Direct eyewitness testimony can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases, even in the absence of forensic evidence, provided the testimony is credible and corroborated by other witnesses.
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.
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....
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
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.
Inconsistencies and lack of corroboration in eyewitness testimony can undermine the prosecution's case and lead to the failure to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Point of Law : Prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge brought against the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing circumstantial evidence. Each link in the chain of circumstances has bee....
Circumstantial evidence must establish a continuous chain linking the accused to the crime, and mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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
