Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 794 of 2013. Case: Chitari Matha Vs The State of Jharkhand. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 794 of 2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: K.P. Deo and K.K. Jha, Advocates and For Respondents: A.P.P. |
| Judges | Prashant Kumar and Amitav Kumar Gupta, JJ. |
| Issue | Arms Act, 1959 - Section 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) - Sections 161, 174, 313; Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sections 3, 4, 4(b); Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 149, 302, 323, 325, 34 |
| Citation | 2014 (3) JLJR 449 |
| Judgement Date | July 14, 2014 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
Amitav Kumar Gupta, J.
-
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.04.2003 and 07.05.2003 respectively passed by IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge, Godda in Sessions Case No. 156 of 2001/38 of 2002 whereby appellant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have been convicted under Section 120B/302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The appellant Nos. 2 to 13 have been convicted for the offence under Section 302/149/34 I.P.C. and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each. The appellant Nos. 2 to 4, 7 and 10 to 12 have been convicted under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for three years. The appellant Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 13 have been convicted under Section 147 IPC and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two years. The appellant Nos. 7 and 10 have been convicted under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substance act and they have been sentenced for seven years with fine of Rs. 5000/- each.
-
In course of hearing it has been informed that appellant No. 1-Chutari Matha, appellant No. 5-Rajesh Matha and appellant No. 13-Lalu Yadav have died during the pendency of this appeal, accordingly, the appeal has abated against the aforementioned appellants.
-
The case of the prosecution as unfolded in the fardbeyan of the informant Umesh Prasad Yadav (P.W. 6) is that on 11.05.2001 at 8 a.m. the informant along with his brothers viz. Pitamber Yadav and Mahesh Yadav @ Maheshwari Yadav were returning home from Godda on the motor cycle whereby at about 5 p.m. they reached Lilje river bridge and crossed the river by kachhi road. It is stated that on south western corner of the bridge they spotted Kesho Matha (appellant No. 3), Krishna Matha (appellant No. 2) and Karunakar Choudhary (appellant No. 4) armed with farsa (hatchet), saang (Barchha)-short spear and iron rod respectively and when they proceeded they saw Lalu Yadav, appellant No. 13 (since dead), Rajesh Matha, appellant No. 5, Ram Yadav, appellant No. 6, Buteshwar Yadav, appellant No. 7 and Sitabi Yadav, appellant No. 10 hiding in a ditch towards east of the road who came out running and shouted to encircle them. It is alleged that Lalu Yadav, Rajesh Matha and Ram Yadav were armed with pistol whereas Buteshwar Yadav and Sitabi Yadav had jhola (bag) in their hand whereafter, the informant asked his brother Mahesh @ Maheshwar Yadav to stop the motor cycle and they fled away to save their lives. It is stated that in the meantime, he saw Babulal Yadav (appellant No. 9), Mantu Yadav (appellant No. 8), Parmanand Yadav (appellant No. 12) and Sanjay Yadav (appellant No. 11) on the south-western side of the field armed with katta, pistol, farsa and gadansa respectively. It is said that the informant ran away towards east and reached village Dumaria and his brothers fled westward from the road. It is alleged that the accused persons were hurling bombs and firing from their pistols while chasing his brothers and they caught and assaulted his brothers with the weapons causing grievous injuries to them. They shouted for help but the people of the vicinity did not come to their rescue as the accused persons are a terror in the area and they are involved in several cases of murder, dacoity and rangdari and some of them have been convicted in the aforesaid cases due to which the people of the locality do not have the courage neither do they dare to oppose them or to testify against them in the court.
It is said that the reason and the motive for the alleged occurrence was due to previous enmity and one of the brothers of the informant had lodged a case with the police on 30.04.2001 in which Chutari Matha (appellant No. 1)(since dead) was arrested and remanded to jail and the said Chutari Matha had ordered and directed the accused to kill the informant and his brothers.
It is stated that after the accused persons had fled away the informant along with the police went to the place of occurrence and found that his two brothers were brutally killed and their hands and feet had been fractured and they had also bleeding cut injuries.
On the basis of the fardbeyan Godda(M) P.S. Case No. 132 of 2001 dated 11.05.2001 was registered under Sections 147/148/149/302/323/325/120(B) I.P.C. and Section 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act. The police prepared the inquest report and sent the dead bodies for post mortem examination. On completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellants and cognizance was taken whereafter the case was committed to the court of Sessions. After commitment, the case was transferred to the court of IIIrd Addl. Sessions Judge for trial and disposal. The accused persons were put to trial and charges were framed to which the appellants pleaded not guilty.
-
The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in support of his case viz.;-
P.W. 1 - Lobin Mandal (maternal uncle of the Informant)
P.W. 2 - Pradeep Yadav (maternal brother of the Informant)
P.W. 3 - Anil Yadav and P.W. - 4- Rajendra Yadav are the brothers of Informant.
P.W. 5 - Arun Kumar. Yadav is the cousin of the brother-in-law (behnoi) of the Informant.
P.W. 6 - Umesh Prasad Yadav is the Informant
P.W. 7 - Dr. Sudhan Murmu, who along with P.W. 9 - Dr. Ajay Kumar Jha conducted post-mortem over the dead bodies of deceased Pitamber Yadav and Maheshwar Yadav.
P.W. 8 - Deep Narayan Yadav is the cousin brother of the Informant.
P.W. 10 - Dr. Pradeep Kumar Sinha has proved the injury reports of the accused/appellants' viz. Kesho Mahta, Karunakar Choudhury and Rajesh Yadav.
P.W. 11 - Girija Prasad Sharma is the Investigating Officer of the case.
-
Prosecution has also brought on record the signature of P.W. 2 (Ext. 1 & 1/A) and P.W. 3 (Ext. 2 & 2/A) on the seizure list, signatures of P.W. 4 (Ext. 3 & 3/5) and P.W. 8 (Ext. 3/1 and 3/2) on the inquest report; Fardbeyan (Ext 4), Post-mortem reports (Ext. 5 & 5/1) and signature of P.W. 7, injury reports of the accused persons (Ext. 6 & 6/A), inquest report (Ext. 2), seizure list (Ext. 3/3 & 3/4), formal F.I.R. (Ext. 6), seizure list of remnants of bomb (Ext. 8), Ext. 9 is the seizure of blood stained soil, Ext. 10 is the certified copy of F.I.R. of Godda (M) P.S. Case No. 121/2001, Ext. 11 is the certified copy of F.I.R. of Godda (T) P.S. Case No. 84/88. Exts. 12, 13 & 14 are the certified copies of Sessions Register which shows that accused/appellants Chutari Mahta, Kishan Mahta and Kehso Mahta were convicted in the said cases, Ext. 15 is the certified copy of judgment of S.T. No. 27 of 1997/128 of 1998 regarding the order of conviction of accused persons including Chutari Mahta, Kishan Mahta and Kesho Mahta in the case lodged by the deceased Pitamber Yadav. Ext. 16 is the sanction order of the District Magistrate, Godda with respect to the offence under Sections 3 & 4 of Explosive Substance Act.
On closure of the prosecution case the statement of the appellants was recorded under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. and the defence of the appellant is of complete denial and false implication.
-
On behalf of the defence, certified copy of the judgment of G.R. Case No. 1027/97/T.R. Case No. 75 of 98 has been filed as Ext. A and the depositions of witnesses of T.R. Case No. 75/98 are Exts. B-B/4. Besides this, Nagnath Pathak, A.S.I., in-charge of Court hajat, Godda has been examined as D.W. 1 who has proved the details of under trial prisoner entered on the page of hajat register dated 04.05.2001 and marked as Ext. C. Ext. D is letter No. 277 dated 21.03.2003 of Dy. Superintendent (Jail), Godda sub-jail and Ext. E is the certified copy of the order sheet dated 04.05.2001 of Sessions Case No. 176 of 2001/80 of 2001.
On the basis of the evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants, accordingly the present appeal is carried to this Court against the impugned judgment.
-
Learned Counsel of the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment inter-alia on the grounds that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material contradictions in the testimony of P.Ws. 2 & 6 which reveals that they are not the eye witnesses of the occurrence; that the trial Court did not consider the fact that the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the accused/appellants; that the witnesses are related and interested and no independent witnesses have been examined in support of the prosecution story; that the post-mortem report does not support the prosecution case that the seized material (remnants of the bomb and blood stained soil) were not sent for chemical or expert examination which creates a doubt regarding the case of the prosecution; that there is inordinate delay in sending the F.I.R. to the Court which proves that there was interpolation in the F.I.R. On the said grounds, it is advocated that the trial Court erred in law and on facts by not appreciating the material contradictions inherent in the prosecution's case and the impugned judgment is against the weight of evidence on record and is fit to be set aside.
-
On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has argued that P.Ws. 2 & 6 are the eye witnesses and they have fully supported the prosecution case; that there is no material contradictions in the testimonies of P.Ws. 2 & 6; that the postmortem report and the inquest report corroborate the manner of occurrence as testified and deposed by P.Ws. 2 & 6. That there was no unreasonable delay in sending the F.I.R. and the evidence is consistent to fasten the charges against the appellants. That the non-sending of the blood stained soil or the remnants of bomb for expert examination is an irregularity which does not demolish or destroy the prosecution's case and the trial Court has appreciated and analysed the evidence on record. Accordingly, the impugned judgment does not require any interference and the appeal should be dismissed.
-
We have...
To continue reading
Request your trial