Manoga Ganjhu Vs. State of Jharkhand - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/69838
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnApr-11-2016
AppellantManoga Ganjhu
RespondentState of Jharkhand
Excerpt:
1 cr. appeal (db) no.831 of 2008 [against the judgment of conviction dated 15th february, 2008 and order of sentence dated 18th february, 2008, passed by sri sachindra kumar pandey, additional sessions judge, f.t.c. no.1, palamu in sessions trial no.23 of 2005] ------ manoga ganjhu, son of late mohan ganjhu, resident of village gendra, p.s. kuda, district chatra (jharkhand). .…..appellant. -versus- the state of jharkhand. .……... respondent. ------ for the appellant : mr. surendra prasad sinha, advocate for the state : mr. ram prakash singh, a.p.p. ------ present coram : hon'ble mr. justice d. n. upadhyay hon’ble mr. justice ratnaker bhengra ----- by court: (d.n. upadhyay, j.) 1. this criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15 th february, 2008 and 18th february, 2008, respectively, passed by learned additional sessions judge, f.t.c. no.1, palamu in connection with sessions trial no.23 of 2005, corresponding to g.r. no.1299 of 2001, arising out of panki p.s. case no.58 of 2001, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 353, 120b of the indian penal code; section 27 of the arms act; section 3 of explosive substance act; and section 17 of criminal law amendment act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of rs.5,000/- and in default five months simple imprisonment under section 302/149 of the indian penal code; rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 17 of criminal law amendment act; rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of rs.3,000/- and in default three months simple imprisonment under section 3 of explosive substance act; rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of rs.2,000/- and in default one month simple imprisonment under section 27 of the arms 2 act; rigorous imprisonment for two years under section 353 of the indian penal code; and rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 148 of the indian penal code; and no separate sentence under section 147 of the indian penal code has been inflicted.2. the fact, emerging from fardbeyan of subba singh, recorded on 12th october, 2001, at 12:20 hours, at village karma, near loharsi road, is that on the false pretext, sub inspector-mashi bhushan lakra was called by ranglal singh. sub inspector-mashi bhushan lakra with his service pistol of 9 mm. and wireless handset proceeded to meet ranglal singh on his motorcycle, but on the way he was intercepted by mcc extremists, who chased him to kill. mashi bhushan lakra tried to escape on his motorcycle but after covering some distance threw the motorcycle and after running about 100 yards took position to reply the miscreants and started firing from his service revolver/pistol. after all cartridges were exhausted the deceased was overpowered by extremists, who killed him at the spot. it is alleged that one accused, namely, niranjan opened fire on the back of head of the deceased-mashi bhushan lakra, whereas other extremists caused crush injuries on face and head of the deceased. the informant has named altogether 12 accused persons, including the appellant, in his fardbeyan. after the incident, police arrived at the place and recorded fardbeyan of subba singh and registered panki p.s. case no.58 of 2001 dated 12th october, 2001 under sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 326, 302, 379 and 120b of the indian penal code; section 3/4 of explosive substance act, section 27 of arms act; and section 17 of criminal law amendment act against the appellant and his associates, who were named in the first information report. the investigation was carried out and after securing attendance of appellant and some of the accused, charge sheet was submitted. accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as sessions trial no.23 of 2005. 3 3. initially four accused, including the appellant, were put on trial and charges under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 353, 379 & 120b of the indian penal code; section 27 of the arms act; section 3/4 of the explosive substance act; and section 17 of the criminal law amendment act were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. to substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, including the doctor and the informant. learned trial judge, placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above. it is made clear that learned trial judge has recorded order of acquittal against remaining three accused, namely, girindra kumar 'prabhakar', pratap sao and murari yadav @ mithilesh jee.4. the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the investigating officer has not been examined; the appellant has committed no overt act; there is specific allegation that injury by firearm was caused to the deceased by accused niranjan. p.ws.1 and 2 have come forward to depose as eye-witnesses, but none of them have described overt act committed by the appellant; they have stated that the appellant was also among the extremists and he was firing from his gun. the appellant has also been held guilty for the offence punishable under section 3 of explosive substance act, but nothing incriminating relating to explosive substance was either seized or produced before the trial court during trial. the expert has also not been examined. admittedly, no injury by means of explosive substance was caused to the deceased. there are contradictions in the statements of p.ws.1 and 2. p.w.2 never said that he had gone to inform the police, rather he says, police arrived at the place of occurrence and then his statement was recorded. on the other hand, p.w.1 says that he had gone to police picket and informed about the occurrence. there 4 is contradiction on the point of time of occurrence. p.w.1 says, it was about 9:00 a.m., whereas p.w.2 says it was between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. it is submitted that occurrence took place in broad day light. many people were present there. it was a market day, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. rajendra singh (p.w.3) and basant singh (p.w.5) are hearsay witnesses, whereas sheoraj singh (p.w.4) has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. the manner of occurrence, as described by p.ws.1 and 2, does not find support from the evidence of dr. mohan prasad (p.w.6), who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased mashi bhushan lakra.5. learned app has opposed the argument and submitted that a police officer was brutally murdered in a planned manner. on the false pretext that ranglal singh has called him, he was instigated to come within the target and, thereafter, the appellant and his associates, who are members of extremists organization, known as mcc, had brutally killed him. santosh kumar singh (p.w.1) is a villager and independent witness and he has fully supported the prosecution case. likewise, subba singh-informant (p.w.2) is also resident of that village and he has also given true account of the occurrence. barring minor contradictions, statements of aforesaid two witnesses on the point of place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and time of occurrence are consistent. the occurrence took place between 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and time disclosed by both witnesses is almost same, because they have not witnessed the occurrence by watch. the aforesaid witnesses had seen the appellant opening fire from his firearm at the time of occurrence and he was also among the accused, who had been chasing mashi bhushan lakra to kill him. the assemblage of which the appellant was a member was an unlawful and common object of said unlawful assembly was to commit murder of mashi bhushan lakra. he was called on false pretext and as soon as he 5 reached to their target they killed him. the injuries appearing on the person of the deceased, as evident from postmortem report, support ocular version of p.ws.1 and 2. hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.6. we have examined the case record, perused the impugned judgment and documents marked exhibits. the sanction for prosecuting the appellant under explosive substance act has been marked exhibit-4. the report received from forensic science laboratory has been marked exhibit-5 under section 294 cr.p.c. the informant has been examined as p.w.2 and he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. this witness has supported the prosecution case as made out by him in his fardbeyan. he has deposed that bhushan kumar, grand son of ranglal singh, had informed sub inspector-mashi bhushan lakra that ranglal singh wants to see him. thereafter, mashi bhushan lakra with his service revolver of 9 mm. and wireless handset proceeded to meet ranglal singh on his motorcycle. at about 10:15 a.m., when the informant reached near loharsi road, he saw mashi bhushan lakra coming fast and he was being chased by the miscreants, who had been hurling bomb and releasing bullets on him. after covering some distance, mashi bhushan lakra dropped his motorcycle and took position within bush and started firing on the miscreants from his service revolver, but overpowered by them after all cartridges consumed. he was brutally killed by the miscreants. it is specifically stated that accused niranjan opened fire on the back of head of deceased-mashi bhushan lakra and the bullet entered from the back of head and came out of parietal region of the scalp. thereafter, remaining accused mercilessly caused assault by means of stone and crushed the face of deceased-mashi bhushan lakra. the version of p.w.2 finds full support from deposition of p.w.1. both the witnesses are independent and residents of that village and we do not find any material to disbelieve or discard their testimony. the contradiction pointed out that one of the witnesses has said 6 that it was about 9:00 a.m., whereas p.w.2 said that it was about 10:15 a.m. has no meaning because p.w.2 has said that after they covered some distance the occurrence took place and it is also a point to be noted that they were on walk. it is also not expected that one would record the occurrence by watch and that too when it had taken place within village area. the doctor, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased, has described the injuries which support the ocular version of p.ws.1 and 2. the occurrence took place between 10;00 a.m. to 11;00 a.m. and immediately fardbeyan of p.w.2 was recorded at about 12:20 hours. immediately, the investigation was taken up. the appearance of all the accused could not be secured and still some of them are absconding. the occurrence was the result of terrorist activities prevailing in the state of jharkhand, which is also apparent from the evidence available on record.7. in view of the discussions made above and the evidences available on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. (d. n. upadhyay, j.) (ratnaker bhengra, j.) jharkhand high court, ranchi, 11th april, 2016 sanjay/nafr
Judgment:

1 Cr. Appeal (DB) No.831 of 2008 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 15th February, 2008 and order of sentence dated 18th February, 2008, passed by Sri Sachindra Kumar Pandey, Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Palamu in Sessions Trial No.23 of 2005] ------ Manoga Ganjhu, son of Late Mohan Ganjhu, resident of Village Gendra, P.S. Kuda, District Chatra (Jharkhand). .…..Appellant. -Versus- The State of Jharkhand. .……... Respondent. ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Surendra Prasad Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, A.P.P. ------ PRESENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA ----- By Court: (D.N. Upadhyay, J.) 1. This criminal appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15 th February, 2008 and 18th February, 2008, respectively, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No.1, Palamu in connection with Sessions Trial No.23 of 2005, corresponding to G.R. No.1299 of 2001, arising out of Panki P.S. Case No.58 of 2001, whereby the appellant has been held guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 353, 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act; Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act; and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default five months simple imprisonment under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code; rigorous imprisonment for six months under Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act; rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default three months simple imprisonment under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act; rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default one month simple imprisonment under Section 27 of the Arms 2 Act; rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code; and rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code; and no separate sentence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code has been inflicted.

2. The fact, emerging from Fardbeyan of Subba Singh, recorded on 12th October, 2001, at 12:20 hours, at village Karma, near Loharsi Road, is that on the false pretext, Sub Inspector-Mashi Bhushan Lakra was called by Ranglal Singh. Sub Inspector-Mashi Bhushan Lakra with his service pistol of 9 mm. and wireless handset proceeded to meet Ranglal Singh on his motorcycle, but on the way he was intercepted by MCC extremists, who chased him to kill. Mashi Bhushan Lakra tried to escape on his motorcycle but after covering some distance threw the motorcycle and after running about 100 yards took position to reply the miscreants and started firing from his service revolver/pistol. After all cartridges were exhausted the deceased was overpowered by extremists, who killed him at the spot. It is alleged that one accused, namely, Niranjan opened fire on the back of head of the deceased-Mashi Bhushan Lakra, whereas other extremists caused crush injuries on face and head of the deceased. The informant has named altogether 12 accused persons, including the appellant, in his Fardbeyan. After the incident, police arrived at the place and recorded Fardbeyan of Subba Singh and registered Panki P.S. Case No.58 of 2001 dated 12th October, 2001 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 326, 302, 379 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 3/4 of Explosive Substance Act, Section 27 of Arms Act; and Section 17 of Criminal Law Amendment Act against the appellant and his associates, who were named in the first information report. The investigation was carried out and after securing attendance of appellant and some of the accused, charge sheet was submitted. Accordingly, cognizance was taken and case was committed to the court of sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No.23 of 2005. 3 3. Initially four accused, including the appellant, were put on trial and charges under Sections 147, 148, 302/149, 353, 379 & 120B of the Indian Penal Code; Section 27 of the Arms Act; Section 3/4 of the Explosive Substance Act; and Section 17 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act were framed against them to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution has examined altogether six witnesses, including the doctor and the informant. Learned Trial Judge, placing reliance on the evidences and documents available on record, held the appellant guilty and inflicted sentence as indicated above. It is made clear that learned Trial Judge has recorded order of acquittal against remaining three accused, namely, Girindra Kumar 'Prabhakar', Pratap Sao and Murari Yadav @ Mithilesh Jee.

4. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment mainly on the ground that the Investigating Officer has not been examined; the appellant has committed no overt act; there is specific allegation that injury by firearm was caused to the deceased by accused Niranjan. P.Ws.1 and 2 have come forward to depose as eye-witnesses, but none of them have described overt act committed by the appellant; they have stated that the appellant was also among the extremists and he was firing from his gun. The appellant has also been held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, but nothing incriminating relating to explosive substance was either seized or produced before the Trial Court during trial. The expert has also not been examined. Admittedly, no injury by means of explosive substance was caused to the deceased. There are contradictions in the statements of P.Ws.1 and 2. P.W.2 never said that he had gone to inform the police, rather he says, police arrived at the place of occurrence and then his statement was recorded. On the other hand, P.W.1 says that he had gone to police picket and informed about the occurrence. There 4 is contradiction on the point of time of occurrence. P.W.1 says, it was about 9:00 a.m., whereas P.W.2 says it was between 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. It is submitted that occurrence took place in broad day light. Many people were present there. It was a market day, but no independent witness has come forward to support the prosecution case. Rajendra Singh (P.W.3) and Basant Singh (P.W.5) are hearsay witnesses, whereas Sheoraj Singh (P.W.4) has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. The manner of occurrence, as described by P.Ws.1 and 2, does not find support from the evidence of Dr. Mohan Prasad (P.W.6), who conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased Mashi Bhushan Lakra.

5. Learned APP has opposed the argument and submitted that a police officer was brutally murdered in a planned manner. On the false pretext that Ranglal Singh has called him, he was instigated to come within the target and, thereafter, the appellant and his associates, who are members of extremists organization, known as MCC, had brutally killed him. Santosh Kumar Singh (P.W.1) is a villager and independent witness and he has fully supported the prosecution case. Likewise, Subba Singh-informant (P.W.2) is also resident of that village and he has also given true account of the occurrence. Barring minor contradictions, statements of aforesaid two witnesses on the point of place of occurrence, manner of occurrence and time of occurrence are consistent. The occurrence took place between 10:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. and time disclosed by both witnesses is almost same, because they have not witnessed the occurrence by watch. The aforesaid witnesses had seen the appellant opening fire from his firearm at the time of occurrence and he was also among the accused, who had been chasing Mashi Bhushan Lakra to kill him. The assemblage of which the appellant was a member was an unlawful and common object of said unlawful assembly was to commit murder of Mashi Bhushan Lakra. He was called on false pretext and as soon as he 5 reached to their target they killed him. The injuries appearing on the person of the deceased, as evident from postmortem report, support ocular version of P.Ws.1 and 2. Hence, there is no merit in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. We have examined the case record, perused the impugned judgment and documents marked exhibits. The sanction for prosecuting the appellant under Explosive Substance Act has been marked Exhibit-4. The report received from Forensic Science Laboratory has been marked Exhibit-5 under Section 294 Cr.P.C. The informant has been examined as P.W.2 and he is an eye-witness to the occurrence. This witness has supported the prosecution case as made out by him in his Fardbeyan. He has deposed that Bhushan Kumar, grand son of Ranglal Singh, had informed Sub Inspector-Mashi Bhushan Lakra that Ranglal Singh wants to see him. Thereafter, Mashi Bhushan Lakra with his service revolver of 9 mm. and wireless handset proceeded to meet Ranglal Singh on his motorcycle. At about 10:15 a.m., when the informant reached near Loharsi Road, he saw Mashi Bhushan Lakra coming fast and he was being chased by the miscreants, who had been hurling bomb and releasing bullets on him. After covering some distance, Mashi Bhushan Lakra dropped his motorcycle and took position within bush and started firing on the miscreants from his service revolver, but overpowered by them after all cartridges consumed. He was brutally killed by the miscreants. It is specifically stated that accused Niranjan opened fire on the back of head of deceased-Mashi Bhushan Lakra and the bullet entered from the back of head and came out of parietal region of the scalp. Thereafter, remaining accused mercilessly caused assault by means of stone and crushed the face of deceased-Mashi Bhushan Lakra. The version of P.W.2 finds full support from deposition of P.W.1. Both the witnesses are independent and residents of that village and we do not find any material to disbelieve or discard their testimony. The contradiction pointed out that one of the witnesses has said 6 that it was about 9:00 a.m., whereas P.W.2 said that it was about 10:15 a.m. has no meaning because P.W.2 has said that after they covered some distance the occurrence took place and it is also a point to be noted that they were on walk. It is also not expected that one would record the occurrence by watch and that too when it had taken place within village area. The doctor, who had conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of deceased, has described the injuries which support the ocular version of P.Ws.1 and 2. The occurrence took place between 10;00 a.m. to 11;00 a.m. and immediately Fardbeyan of P.W.2 was recorded at about 12:20 hours. Immediately, the investigation was taken up. The appearance of all the accused could not be secured and still some of them are absconding. The occurrence was the result of terrorist activities prevailing in the State of Jharkhand, which is also apparent from the evidence available on record.

7. In view of the discussions made above and the evidences available on record, we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. (D. N. Upadhyay, J.) (Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi, 11th April, 2016 Sanjay/NAFR