SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 196

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

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. Ranjit Kumar Tiwari, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.

IMPORTANT POINT
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.

Headnote:

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

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            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

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top