IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Ramjee Hembrom – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.479 of 2015
Decided on : 18-03-2024
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE - IPC SECTIONS 302, 201, 34 - The court discussed Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. It interpreted these provisions to establish that the accused acted with a common intention to commit murder and subsequently conceal the evidence of the crime. The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony and corroborative evidence in reaching its decision, ultimately affirming the conviction based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented.
JUDGMENT :
Per Subhash Chand, J.:
Heard learned counsel for the appellants 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 1st June, 2015 and Order of sentence dated 10th June, 2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Trial No.290 of 2012, whereby, the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302/34 of the I.P.C. and one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 201/34 of the I.P.C. along with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, the appellants were directed to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
3. The brief facts giving rise to this criminal appeal are that the informant—Priya Tudu had given the written information with the police station concerned with these allegations that the informant wife of Binod Hembram resides along with her mother-in-law Most. Marangmai Soren, Bhaisur—Raj Kumar Hembram and sister-in-law Bhiru Tudu. It is further stated that her sister-in-law and Bhaisur both were not at the house and her mother-in-law Marangmai Soren was at the house. The family of her father-in-law Ramji Hembram along with Bihari Hembram also resides there and courtyard of both the house is one and same and main door opens thereon. It is further alleged that on 31st July, 2012 at 1.30 o’ clock of day time she had gone to sow the paddy and her husband was alone at the house. When at 5 o’ clock the informant came back to the house, she saw that her father-in-law Ramji Hembram and Bihari Hembram both were dragging her husband Binod Hembram into the house. She reached in the courtyard and found her husband lying in pool of blood who ultimately died. Thereafter her father-in-law Ramji Hembram and Bihari Hembram fled away. One Tala Murmu of the village told her that at the time of occurrence, he was sleeping on the cot in front of door of Ganesh Marandi and had seen Ramji Hembram and Bihari Hembram armed with Lathi, kudal and the tangi and they had assaulted to Binod Hembram over the head. He also came to rescue but both fled away after having committed murder of Binod Hembram. He had also snatched away one tangi from Ramji Hembram, thereafter, both had dragged Binod Hembram and took him inside the house.
4. On this written information, the Case Crime No. 112 of 2012 was registered with the police station Pathargama District Godda under Sections 302/201/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Ramji Hembram and Bihari Hembram. The Investigating Officer concluded the investigation and filed charge-sheet against both the said accused persons for the offence under Sections 302/201/34 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, Godda.
6. The court of Sessions Judge, Godda framed charge against the accused Ramji Hembram and Bihari Hembram under Sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C. The charge was read over and explained to both the 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-Naresh Hembram, P.W.2- Prakash Kisku, P.W.3-Shiv Charan Baski, P.W.4-Tala Murmu, P.W.5- Dr. Kulanand Choudhary, P.W.6-Sushil Hansda, P.W.7-Raj Kumar Hembram, P.W.8-Nawal Kishore Soren, P.W.9-Mitu Soren, P.W.-10 Marangmai Soren, P.W.-11 Arun Kumar Pandey (the I.O. of the case), P.W.-12 Priya Tuddu (the informant) and P.W.-13 Bhola Nath Bhagat.
8. On behalf of the prosecution in documentary evidence adduced Ext.1 signature of Naresh Hembram on the seizure list, Ext.2 postmortem report, Ext.3 inquest report, Ext.1/1 seizure list, Ext.3/1 sig
Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana
Ravishwar Manjhi and Ors vs State of Jharkhand reported in AIR 2009 SC 1262
State of Punjab v. Hakam Singh reported in (2005) 7 SCC 408
State of Maharashtra vs Tulshiram Bhanudas Kamble and Ors reported in AIR 2007 SC 3042
Ashok Kumar Chaudhary and Ors. vs State of Bihar reported in AIR 2008 SC 2436
Mano v. State of T.N. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 795
Mukhtiar Singh and Anr vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 2009 SC 1854
Eyewitness testimony must be consistent and corroborated; convictions cannot rely solely on the testimony of closely related witnesses without independent verification.
Unreliable eyewitness testimony cannot support a conviction, leading to the reversal of a murder conviction based on insufficient evidence.
Conviction for murder under Section 302 established through credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, despite minor inconsistencies and investigation delays.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to establish the shared common intention of the accused in committing the murder.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the testimony of witnesses, even if related to the deceased, should not be automatically discarded, and minor discrepancies in the evidence sh....
Interested evidence is not necessarily unreliable and should be scrutinized with care but cannot be rejected merely on the ground of being partisan. Minor discrepancies and contradictions should not ....
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....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.