Ledwa Oraon Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - she has clearly said that the appellant had fired from the gun from a distance of about 3-4 feets in front of the neck.order1. this appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned 1st additional judge, gumla in s.t. no. 100 of 1997 convicting the appellant under section 302 of the indian penal code and sentencing him to undergo r.i. for life.2. prosecution case in short is that jiwanti devi (pw 2) wife of bhukhla oraon (the deceased) gave fardbeyan at her house on 6.6.1996 at about 4.15 p.m. to the police officer to the effect that at the preceding night when she was sleeping with her husband bhukhla oraon in the verandah, at about 3 a.m. four persons including the appellant came into her house. one person flashed torch over them on which they woke up and saw the appellant and three others. the appellant had torch in one hand and gun in other and he fired from his gun from a very close distance in front of the neck of her husband bhukhla oraon due to which he fell down and died immediately. the accused persons then fled away. except the appellant, the other accused had no arms in their hands. on hulla the villagers came to her house. it is alleged in the fir that there was land dispute between the parties. charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed under sections 302/34 of the indian penal code against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. in defence they totally denied the occurrence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. it may be noted here that the other accused persons have been acquitted and only the appellant has been convicted.3. the prosecution examined seven witnesses.pw 1 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. he found the following ante-mortem injuries:(i) multiple pillate wounds eight in numbers present in front of chest and neck on the upper part of chest and slightly on the left side of the mid-line with bleeding and gun power burn of the adjoining skin.(ii) extensive laceration of the upper part of the left lung, with laemithorax on left side 5 pillates extracted from the body which was sealed in a bottle and signed.(iii) the trachea and ocsophgous were also lacerated and the fryord bone of the neck was broken.(iv) the cervical vertibra was broken and the spinal chest was also lacerated.according to pw 1 the cause of death was the said ante-mortem injuries caused by gun shot from point blank range which were sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature.in his cross examination pw 1 has said that the distance of firing at point blank does not mean touching the body. he further said that he found eight holes in the chest and five pillets inside the body. he further said that he cannot say whether the fire arm was a pistol or gun. he found blood soaked face and neck in front of chest and bleeding from nostril.the post-mortem report was marked as exhibit-1.pw 2 is the informant. she supported her version in the fir in material particulars. in her cross-examination she inter-alia stated that the gun was about 5 feet long and it was fired from a distance of about 3-4 feets of the deceased.pw 3 is a formal witness to the inquest report. pw 4 and pw 5 are hear-say witnesses. pw 6 is another inquest report witness. pw 7 is a formal witness who exhibited the case diary. court witness-1 is a formal witness who got the formal fir and fardbeyan exhibited. i.o. has not been examined in this case.4. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case falsely only with a view to grab his land; that the identification of the appellant, allegedly having torch in his hand, is not possible; there are contradictions between inquest and the post-mortem report; there are contradictions in the version of the informant in the fardbeyan and in the evidence of pw 2; non-examination of the investigating officer has prejudiced the case of the appellant in his defence and there are contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses.5. learned counsel for the state supported the trial court's judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. only on the basis of some minor contributions which do not affect the broad aspects of the prosecution's case the appellant cannot be acquitted.6. we have gone through the materials on record carefully. the fardbeyan lodged by jiwanti devi (pw 2) wife of the deceased finds corroboration with the post-mortem report. she has clearly said that the appellant had fired from the gun from a distance of about 3-4 feets in front of the neck. the pillet injuries have been found on the neck and upper part of the chest. as the appellant was agnate of the deceased, he was known to the informant and therefore, it cannot be accepted that it was not possible to identify him only because he was holding torch in his hand. it is true that the investigating officer has not been examined but we find no material contradictions in the evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the non-examination of investigating officer has caused prejudice to the appellant. the presence of jiwanti devi (pw 2) being wife of the deceased was natural at the place and time of occurrence. the place and time of occurrence is established by the evidence of the witnesses and the same has not been disputed nor is death of the deceased by gun shot injury disputed. there is noting to suggest that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case sparing the main culprit. we find that the trial court has correctly appreciated the materials on record.7. we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial court which are hereby upheld. in the result this appeal is dismissed.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.12.1999 passed by the learned 1st Additional Judge, Gumla in S.T. No. 100 of 1997 convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for life.

2. Prosecution case in short is that Jiwanti Devi (PW 2) wife of Bhukhla Oraon (the deceased) gave fardbeyan at her house on 6.6.1996 at about 4.15 p.m. to the police officer to the effect that at the preceding night when she was sleeping with her husband Bhukhla Oraon in the verandah, at about 3 a.m. four persons including the appellant came into her house. One person flashed torch over them on which they woke up and saw the appellant and three others. The appellant had torch in one hand and gun in other and he fired from his gun from a very close distance in front of the neck of her husband Bhukhla Oraon due to which he fell down and died immediately. The accused persons then fled away. Except the appellant, the other accused had no arms in their hands. On hulla the villagers came to her house. It is alleged in the FIR that there was land dispute between the parties. Charge-sheet was submitted, cognizance was taken and charges were framed under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused persons who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In defence they totally denied the occurrence and stated that they were falsely implicated in this case. It may be noted here that the other accused persons have been acquitted and only the appellant has been convicted.

3. The prosecution examined seven witnesses.

PW 1 is the doctor who conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased. He found the following ante-mortem injuries:

(i) Multiple pillate wounds eight in numbers present in front of chest and neck on the upper part of chest and slightly on the left side of the mid-line with bleeding and gun power burn of the adjoining skin.

(ii) Extensive laceration of the upper part of the left lung, with laemithorax on left side 5 pillates extracted from the body which was sealed in a bottle and signed.

(iii) The trachea and ocsophgous were also lacerated and the fryord bone of the neck was broken.

(iv) The cervical vertibra was broken and the spinal chest was also lacerated.

According to PW 1 the cause of death was the said ante-mortem injuries caused by gun shot from point blank range which were sufficient to cause death of the victim in the ordinary course of nature.

In his cross examination PW 1 has said that the distance of firing at point blank does not mean touching the body. He further said that he found eight holes in the chest and five pillets inside the body. He further said that he cannot say whether the fire arm was a pistol or gun. He found blood soaked face and neck in front of chest and bleeding from nostril.

The post-mortem report was marked as Exhibit-1.

PW 2 is the informant. She supported her version in the FIR in material particulars. In her cross-examination she inter-alia stated that the gun was about 5 feet long and it was fired from a distance of about 3-4 feets of the deceased.

PW 3 is a formal witness to the inquest report. PW 4 and PW 5 are hear-say witnesses. PW 6 is another inquest report witness. PW 7 is a formal witness who exhibited the case diary. Court witness-1 is a formal witness who got the formal FIR and fardbeyan exhibited. I.O. has not been examined in this case.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been implicated in this case falsely only with a view to grab his land; that the identification of the appellant, allegedly having torch in his hand, is not possible; there are contradictions between inquest and the post-mortem report; there are contradictions in the version of the informant in the fardbeyan and in the evidence of PW 2; non-examination of the Investigating Officer has prejudiced the case of the appellant in his defence and there are contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses.

5. Learned Counsel for the State supported the trial Court's judgment and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only on the basis of some minor contributions which do not affect the broad aspects of the prosecution's case the appellant cannot be acquitted.

6. We have gone through the materials on record carefully. The fardbeyan lodged by Jiwanti Devi (PW 2) wife of the deceased finds corroboration with the post-mortem report. She has clearly said that the appellant had fired from the gun from a distance of about 3-4 feets in front of the neck. The pillet injuries have been found on the neck and upper part of the chest. As the appellant was agnate of the deceased, he was known to the informant and therefore, it cannot be accepted that it was not possible to identify him only because he was holding torch in his hand. It is true that the Investigating Officer has not been examined but we find no material contradictions in the evidence on record on the basis of which it can be said that the non-examination of Investigating Officer has caused prejudice to the appellant. The presence of Jiwanti Devi (PW 2) being wife of the deceased was natural at the place and time of occurrence. The place and time of occurrence is established by the evidence of the witnesses and the same has not been disputed nor is death of the deceased by gun shot injury disputed. There is noting to suggest that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case sparing the main culprit. We find that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the materials on record.

7. We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court which are hereby upheld. In the result this appeal is dismissed.