Joto Bodra Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/66732
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnOct-14-2015
AppellantJoto Bodra
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
1 cr. (jail) appeal (d.b.) no. 665 of 2008 against the judgment of conviction dated 16.3.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.3.2004 passed by the sessions judge, simdega in sessions case no. 40 of 2003. ----- joto bodra … … appellant versus the state of jharkhand … … respondent ----- for the appellant : mr. herdeo prasad singh, amicus curiae for the state : mrs. vandana bharti, a.p.p. ----- present hon’ble mr. justice r. r. prasad hon’ble mr. justice pramath patnaik by court :- appellant-joto bodra was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of the deceased-niral bodra. the trial court having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted him for the offence punishable under section 302 of the indian penal code vide its judgment dated 16.3.2004 passed in sessions trial no. 40 of 2003 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 18.3.2004.2. the case of the prosecution, as is emerging out of the fardbeyan (ext.2) of the informant-basanti bodra (p.w.1), is that on 8.9.2002 niral bodra, husband of the informant, had gone to the forest for grazing his bullocks. in the evening, when niral bodra came home at about 4 o'clock, he was having injury near his eyes. niral bodra disclosed to his wife that the same has been caused by the appellant to whom he will not spare. by saying so, niral bodra by taking 'tangi' came out of the house. as soon as he came out of the house, he came across with the mother of the appellant and also the appellant who had come there having 'tangi' with him. there, the appellant assaulted niral bodra (deceased) indiscriminately as a result of which he died. after three days of the occurrence i.e. on 11.9.2002, braj 2 kishore kumar, officer incharge of bano police station when received information at about 8:30am that some occurrence had taken place at village-olhan, he entered it into the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he reached at about 11:30am and recorded the fardbeyan (ext.2) of the informant-basanti bodra (p.w.1), wife of the deceased, wherein she narrated about the incident, as has been stated above. she further stated that as the bullocks of her husband had eaten out some paddy crops of the appellant, altercation took place in between her husband and the appellant during which course, her husband had been assaulted by the appellant. on the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal fir (ext.3) was drawn and a case was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation during which the investigating officer held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report and sent the dead-body for postmortem examination only on 16.9.2002, after delay of almost five days from the date of recording of the fardbeyan for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution nor it could be elicited from the side of the defence. however, dr. tulsi mahto-p.w.4 upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased, which was highly decomposed, did find that the dead- body was having infiltration of maggots. most of the parts have been eaten out by the maggots. the forehead area of frontal bone was missing. however, the doctor found crack fracture of left parietal bone of posterior part. there was infiltration of blood and blood clot in soft tissues of occipital scalp and in the bony tissues on fractured side. there was fracture of right 2nd to 9th ribs and of left 2nd to 6th ribs. the blood and blood clot was found on the thorax cavity.3. the doctor issued postmortem examination report (ext.4) with an opinion that the death was caused due to head injury. time since death within 5 to 10 days from the time of the postmortem examination. 3 meanwhile, the investigating officer made inspection of the place of occurrence and took the statements of the witnesses.4. on completion of the investigation, when the investigating officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the court of sessions, the appellant was put on trial.5. during trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 5 witnesses. of them, p.w. 1-basanti bodra (wife of the deceased) and p.w.2-ruth bodra, daughter of the deceased, are the eye witnesses who did testify that the niral bodra (deceased) had gone to the forest for getting his bullocks grazed. when he returned home, they found injury near his eyes. on being asked, niral bodra (deceased) told his wife that he has been assaulted by the appellant as his bullocks had eaten out some crops of the appellant. meanwhile, the appellant came to the courtyard of the house of the deceased and assaulted him with 'tangi' brutally as a result of which, he died.6. after closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under section 313 of cr.p.c. about the incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied.7. thereupon the trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of p.ws. 1 and 2, the eye witnesses, getting corroboration from the medical evidence, did find the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under section 302 of indian penal code and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge.8. mr. herdeo prasad singh, learned counsel, appointed as amicus curiae, submits that there has been much delay in lodging the first information report which puts the case of the prosecution under suspicion as to whether the occurrence took place in the manner as has been stated in the fardbeyan or otherwise and that the informant-p.w.1 4 in course of her evidence has deviated from her earlier statement made out in the fardbeyan and thereby in these situations, the trial court should not have placed reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses but the trial court by putting the reliance on the testimonies of both the eye witnesses did commit illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by not taking into account the circumstances, as aforesaid, and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant is fit to be set aside.9. as against this, mrs. vandana bharti, learned counsel for the state, submits that it is true that the case has been lodged after three days of the occurrence but there appears to be reason for lodging the case so delayedly, as the informant-p.w.1, as per her evidence, was ill from before and that there has been no reason on the part of the informant-p.w.1 and her daughter-p.w.2 to falsely implicate the appellant and thereby there was no option for the trial court but to accept the testimonies of the eye witnesses, whereby the trial court by putting reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses did find the appellant guilty and hence it rightly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which never warrants to be interfered with by this court.10. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been testified by the informant-p.w.1 and also the statement made in the fardbeyan that on 8.9.2002 niral bodra (deceased), husband of the informant-p.w.1, had gone to the forest for grazing his bullocks. there he was assaulted by the appellant which fact was disclosed by the deceased to the informant-p.w.1 when the deceased returned home. meanwhile, the appellant came in front of the house of the deceased and when the deceased came out of the house, he was assaulted by the appellant with 'tangi' causing injuries, resulting into his death. this fact 5 has been supported by the p.w.2-daughter of the deceased.11. that apart she in her cross-examination did testify that the mother of the appellant, who had come along with the appellant, had also fallen on the ground. p.w. 2 has simply said about the mother of the appellant falling on the ground but nothing seems to have been elicited from her about the reason of her falling on the ground and thereby nothing could be placed on record as to whether she (mother of the appellant) had received any injury. if the defence would have been able to bring out something in this regard on record, colour of the prosecution case would have changed drastically but it is not so and thereby in absence of any evidence in this regard, we have no option but to accept the testimonies of p.ws.1 and 2 which also get corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor did find fracture on the frontal bone and also on the ribs on account of the deceased being assaulted over his head, chest, hands etc. as per the evidences of p.ws. 1 and 2.12. thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant.13. accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed.14. consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (r.r. prasad, j.) (pramath patnaik, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi dated the 14th october, 2015 n.a.f.r. /akt
Judgment:

1 Cr. (Jail) Appeal (D.B.) No. 665 of 2008 Against the judgment of conviction dated 16.3.2004 and order of sentence dated 18.3.2004 passed by the Sessions Judge, Simdega in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2003. ----- Joto Bodra … … Appellant Versus The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent ----- For the Appellant : Mr. Herdeo Prasad Singh, Amicus Curiae For the State : Mrs. Vandana Bharti, A.P.P. ----- PRESENT HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. R. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK By Court :- Appellant-Joto Bodra was put on trial on the accusation of committing murder of the deceased-Niral Bodra. The trial court having found the appellant guilty of the charge convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code vide its judgment dated 16.3.2004 passed in Sessions Trial No. 40 of 2003 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life vide order dated 18.3.2004.

2. The case of the prosecution, as is emerging out of the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant-Basanti Bodra (P.W.1), is that on 8.9.2002 Niral Bodra, husband of the informant, had gone to the forest for grazing his bullocks. In the evening, when Niral Bodra came home at about 4 O'clock, he was having injury near his eyes. Niral Bodra disclosed to his wife that the same has been caused by the appellant to whom he will not spare. By saying so, Niral Bodra by taking 'tangi' came out of the house. As soon as he came out of the house, he came across with the mother of the appellant and also the appellant who had come there having 'tangi' with him. There, the appellant assaulted Niral Bodra (deceased) indiscriminately as a result of which he died. After three days of the occurrence i.e. on 11.9.2002, Braj 2 Kishore Kumar, Officer Incharge of Bano police station when received information at about 8:30am that some occurrence had taken place at village-Olhan, he entered it into the station diary and proceeded to the place of occurrence where he reached at about 11:30am and recorded the fardbeyan (Ext.2) of the informant-Basanti Bodra (P.W.1), wife of the deceased, wherein she narrated about the incident, as has been stated above. She further stated that as the bullocks of her husband had eaten out some paddy crops of the appellant, altercation took place in between her husband and the appellant during which course, her husband had been assaulted by the appellant. On the basis of such fardbeyan, a formal FIR (Ext.3) was drawn and a case was registered against the appellant and the matter was taken up for investigation during which the Investigating Officer held inquest on the dead-body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report and sent the dead-body for postmortem examination only on 16.9.2002, after delay of almost five days from the date of recording of the fardbeyan for which no explanation has been given by the prosecution nor it could be elicited from the side of the defence. However, Dr. Tulsi Mahto-P.W.4 upon holding autopsy on the dead-body of the deceased, which was highly decomposed, did find that the dead- body was having infiltration of maggots. Most of the parts have been eaten out by the maggots. The forehead area of frontal bone was missing. However, the doctor found crack fracture of left parietal bone of posterior part. There was infiltration of blood and blood clot in soft tissues of occipital scalp and in the bony tissues on fractured side. There was fracture of right 2nd to 9th ribs and of left 2nd to 6th ribs. The blood and blood clot was found on the thorax cavity.

3. The doctor issued postmortem examination report (Ext.4) with an opinion that the death was caused due to head injury. Time since death within 5 to 10 days from the time of the postmortem examination. 3 Meanwhile, the Investigating Officer made inspection of the place of occurrence and took the statements of the witnesses.

4. On completion of the investigation, when the Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet against the appellant, cognizance of the offence was taken and in due course, when the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, the appellant was put on trial.

5. During trial, the prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 5 witnesses. Of them, P.W. 1-Basanti Bodra (wife of the deceased) and P.W.2-Ruth Bodra, daughter of the deceased, are the eye witnesses who did testify that the Niral Bodra (deceased) had gone to the forest for getting his bullocks grazed. When he returned home, they found injury near his eyes. On being asked, Niral Bodra (deceased) told his wife that he has been assaulted by the appellant as his bullocks had eaten out some crops of the appellant. Meanwhile, the appellant came to the courtyard of the house of the deceased and assaulted him with 'tangi' brutally as a result of which, he died.

6. After closure of the prosecution case, when the appellant was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidences appearing against him, he denied.

7. Thereupon the trial court having placed its implicit reliance on the testimonies of P.Ws. 1 and 2, the eye witnesses, getting corroboration from the medical evidence, did find the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant, which is under challenge.

8. Mr. Herdeo Prasad Singh, learned counsel, appointed as Amicus Curiae, submits that there has been much delay in lodging the first information report which puts the case of the prosecution under suspicion as to whether the occurrence took place in the manner as has been stated in the fardbeyan or otherwise and that the informant-P.W.1 4 in course of her evidence has deviated from her earlier statement made out in the fardbeyan and thereby in these situations, the trial court should not have placed reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses but the trial court by putting the reliance on the testimonies of both the eye witnesses did commit illegality in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by not taking into account the circumstances, as aforesaid, and hence the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant is fit to be set aside.

9. As against this, Mrs. Vandana Bharti, learned counsel for the State, submits that it is true that the case has been lodged after three days of the occurrence but there appears to be reason for lodging the case so delayedly, as the informant-P.W.1, as per her evidence, was ill from before and that there has been no reason on the part of the informant-P.W.1 and her daughter-P.W.2 to falsely implicate the appellant and thereby there was no option for the trial court but to accept the testimonies of the eye witnesses, whereby the trial court by putting reliance on the testimonies of the eye witnesses did find the appellant guilty and hence it rightly recorded the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant which never warrants to be interfered with by this Court.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the records, we do find that it is the case of the prosecution as has been testified by the informant-P.W.1 and also the statement made in the fardbeyan that on 8.9.2002 Niral Bodra (deceased), husband of the informant-P.W.1, had gone to the forest for grazing his bullocks. There he was assaulted by the appellant which fact was disclosed by the deceased to the informant-P.W.1 when the deceased returned home. Meanwhile, the appellant came in front of the house of the deceased and when the deceased came out of the house, he was assaulted by the appellant with 'tangi' causing injuries, resulting into his death. This fact 5 has been supported by the P.W.2-daughter of the deceased.

11. That apart she in her cross-examination did testify that the mother of the appellant, who had come along with the appellant, had also fallen on the ground. P.W. 2 has simply said about the mother of the appellant falling on the ground but nothing seems to have been elicited from her about the reason of her falling on the ground and thereby nothing could be placed on record as to whether she (mother of the appellant) had received any injury. If the defence would have been able to bring out something in this regard on record, colour of the prosecution case would have changed drastically but it is not so and thereby in absence of any evidence in this regard, we have no option but to accept the testimonies of P.Ws.1 and 2 which also get corroboration from the medical evidence, as the doctor did find fracture on the frontal bone and also on the ribs on account of the deceased being assaulted over his head, chest, hands etc. as per the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

12. Thus, we do find that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and thereby the trial court is absolutely justified in recording the judgment of conviction and order of sentence against the appellant.

13. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant is hereby affirmed.

14. Consequently, this appeal stands dismissed. (R.R. Prasad, J.) (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated the 14th October, 2015 N.A.F.R. /AKT