Dismissed

Jitu Rai And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Jan 2019Cr.A(DB)/1396/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court bench disposed of two criminal jail appeals against a conviction for murder under Sections 302/34 and 436 IPC. Rejecting the appellant's arguments regarding motive and witnesses, the court upheld the lower court's judgment and affirmed the sentence, dismissing the appeals.

What did the court decide?

Both criminal jail appeals dismissed; bail of Vikram Rai and Ratan Rai cancelled; directed to surrender before the court below.

Jitu Rai And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 with

¶3

Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1225 of 2008

¶4

Against the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 05.09.2008 passed by Shri Brajendra Kumar Sinha, 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2007

¶5

Jitu Rai 2. Jhulu Rai 3. Vikram Rai ….........Appellants (Cr.(Jail)Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ….......... Respondent with Ratan Rai .........Appellant (Cr.(Jail)Appeal (DB) No. 1225 of 2008 Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ….......... Respondent

¶6

….... For the Appellants : Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, Amicus Curiae (Cr.(Jail)Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008) For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, Amicus Curiae (Cr.(Jail)Appeal (DB) No. 1225 of 2008) For the Respondent : Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor (in both cases)

¶7

PRESENT

¶8

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶9

Per Kailash Prasad Deo,J.

¶10

Heard learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Jitendra Tripathi in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1396 of 2008, learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh in Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor in both Cr.(Jail) Appeals.

¶11

Both Cr.(Jail)Appeals are arising out of a common judgment of conviction and order of sentence and as such both are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. Four convicts have preferred two Cr.(Jail) Appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 05.09.2008 passed by 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2007, whereby all these four accused/appellants have been held guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302/34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Trial Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment for life for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008

¶13

with

¶14

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008 However, no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence committed and punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

Prosecution case is based upon Fardbeyan of Sarju Rai, (P.W.3) recorded by S.I, S.K.Marandi, Officer Incharge, Muffasil Police Station on 26.02.2007 at 08.00 Hrs. at Village-Dundhia. The informant has alleged that in the previous night, after taking dinner the entire family was sleeping. At around 1.30 A.M. the informant saw the flame of fire at his door and thereafter the informant and his wife, Shanti Devi came out. The informant has specifically stated that his wife came out of the house first and tried to raise brawl, upon which the agnates namely Jitu Rai son of Sufal Rai, Jhulu Rai son of Shambhu Rai, Ratan Rai son of Late Gullu Rai and Vikram Rai son of Late Rohan Rai have assaulted the wife of the informant by means of sharp cutting weapon, due to which, she died at the spot. The informant has stated that on the brawl raised by him all the accused persons fled away towards their house. The informant has stated that occurrence took place as they have prevailing land dispute and because of the enmity occurrence has been committed.

¶16

On the basis of Fardbeyan, police registered Muffasil P. S. Case No. 25/2007 dated 26.02.2007 under Sections 302/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code against four named accused persons. After completion of investigation, the police submitted final form sent uping all the four named accused persons vide Charge-sheet no. 42/2007 dated 17.05.2007 under Sections 302/436/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Cognizance of the offence has been taken against all the four accused persons vide order dated 31.05.2007 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 07.07.2007. The charge has been framed against all the four named accused persons on 07/08/2007 under Sections 302/34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code, to which four accused persons have pleaded their innocence and thus they were put under trial.

¶17

In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution has altogether examined 8 prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documents upto Ext.-6. Surendra Rai son of the informant and the deceased has been examined as P.W.-1. He has claimed himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. Ganpat Rai, a hearsay witnesses has been examined as P.W.2. Sarju Rai informant of the case and husband of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-3. He has claimed himself to be an eye witness in the

¶18

3 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008

¶19

with

¶20

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008 Fardbeyan as well as in the deposition. He has proved his signature on the Fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.-1. Dr. Anant Kumar Jha, Medical Officer, who has conducted the autopsy of the dead body of Shanti Devi has been examined as P.W. 4. He has proved the postmortem report which has been marked as Ext.-2. Suresh Tuddu, inquest witness, has been examined as P.W.5 and has proved his signature on the inquest report as Ext.-3. Mukund Rai, another inquest witness has been examined as P.W.-6. He has proved his signature on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext.-3/1. Sunil Kumar Marandi, Investigating Officer of the case, has been examined as P.W.7. He has proved endorsement made on the F.I.R which has been marked as Ext.-4. F.I.R has been proved and marked as Ext.-5 and inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext.-6. Videshi Dehri has been examined as P.W.8. This witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution. After closure of the prosecution evidence, all the four accused persons have been examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C on 16.07.2008, to which the accused persons have denied the allegation levelled against them and stated that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. Thereafter, the defence has also examined two witnesses, Sumati Soren as D.W.-1 and Nand Lal Rai as D.W.2, but no defence document has been brought on record.

¶21

After hearing the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned Trial Court has convicted all the four accused persons under Sections 302/34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigorous imprisonment for life, but no separate sentence has been awarded for the offence committed and punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶22

Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, assailed the same by filing two Cr. (Jail) Appeals i.e., Appellants, Jitu Rai, Jhulu Rai and Vikram Rai preferred Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 1396 of 2008 and appellant, Ratan Rai preferred Cr. (Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008.

¶23

Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Jitendra Tripathi in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1396 of 2008, learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor in both Cr.(Jail) Appeals.

¶24

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain

¶25

4 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 with

¶26

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008 in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the motive shown in the First Information Report is not correct as the property will be succeeded by son of the deceased, as such the learned Trial Court is not justified in convicting these four accused/appellants for the motive that Shanti Devi had settled over the land of her father at her father's place in VillageDundhia. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that Surendra Rai-P.W.-1 has claimed himself to be an eye witness to the occurrence, but his name has not been disclosed in Fardbeyan as an eye witness nor in the statement of informant while examining as P.W.3. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that Jhulu Rai who has been made an accused in this case is a Chaukidar at Dumka Muffasil Police Station and has informed the police, as per the evidence of P.W.6 and as such he has been falsely implicated in this case and without considering the statement of Jhulu Rai recorded under Section 313 Cr. P. C, learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the Jhulu Rai under Section 302/34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Amicus Curiae has thus submitted that since the prosecution has not brought any document on record to prove that there was a land dispute prevailing between the parties, the appellant are entitled for benefit of doubt and may be acquitted of the charge and conviction under Sections 302/34 and 436 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶27

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor in both Cr.(Jail) Appeals has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by learned Trial Court on the basis of the materials available on record. Learned State counsel has submitted that Surendra Rai, son of informant and the deceased has been examined as P.W.1. This witness has categorically stated that all the four accused persons, namely, Jitu Rai, Jhulu Rai, Vikram Rai and Ratan Rai have taken active role in killing Shanti Devi, mother of the witness and wife of the informant. This witness has stated that Vikram Rai has caught hold of his mother, deceased Shanti Devi, Ratan Rai has caught hold of hair of Shanti Devi. Jhulu Rai has chopped off the neck of his mother by means of Hasua and Jitu Rai has chopped off the hand of his mother, which was separated from the main body. Learned State counsel has submitted that Sarju Rai informant of the case, who has been examined as P.W.3 has also adduced consistent evidence to his Fardbeyan and the evidence of P.W.-1 Surendra Rai. Surendra Rai has categorically stated that Jhulu Rai has chopped off the

¶28

5 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 with

¶29

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008 neck of Shanti Devi, who died at the spot at once. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that Dr. Anant Kumar Jha, who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased has been examined as P.W.-4 and has proved the postmortem report of the deceased which has been marked as Ext.-2. As per Ext.-2, the postmortem report, the corresponding injuries have been found. The Doctor has found the following ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased:

¶30

Right hand amputated at wrist joint.

¶31

Incised wound over left side of neck below left ear 4”x 3”x bone deep, cutting across the soft tissues and blood vessels, extending to back.

¶32

Incised wound 4” x 1 ½” x bone deep over the left parietal region. On dissection the underlying bone found fractured. Incised wound 2” x 1” x bone deep over top of head. On further dissection there was fracture of underlying bone. On further dissection meninges were intact and there was collection of blood in cranial cavity.

¶33

The Doctor has categorically stated that in his opinion death was due to haemorrhage and shock caused by above injuries. Time elapsed since death is within 36 Hrs.

¶34

Learned State counsel has further submitted that though the defence has cross-examined P.W.1, Surendra Rai, P.W.3, Sarju Rai the informant, P.W.4 Dr. Anant Kumar Jha and P.W.7, Sunil Kumar Marandi, Investigating Officer, but nothing has been elucidated to dispel the prosecution case. Learned State counsel has thus submitted that on the basis of materials brought on record, learned Trial Court has rightly passed the judgment of conviction against the present accused/appellants which does not warrant any interference by this Court. Learned State counsel has stated that so far the submissions made by learned Amicus Curiae with regard to Jhulu Rai is concerned, no such cross-examination was made from the Investigating Officer to dispel the prosecution case. As per evidence of P.W.7, Investigating Officer, he has categorically stated that, he got telephonic information about the occurrence and thereafter he came to the village and recorded the Fardbeyan and the statement of other witnesses. He has found the burnt wooden bamboo at the place of occurrence but he has not seized the same. Learned State counsel has submitted that during trial, the defence has not raised any doubt or question with regard to commission of an offence under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, which reads as under:

¶35

6 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 with

¶36

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008

¶37

“ Section 436: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc.- Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

¶38

As such, the submissions which have been made by learned Amicus Curiae are not in consonance with the defence as it appears from the trend of cross-examination made by the defence. Learned State counsel has thus submitted that the accused persons have killed the lady, who has settled at the land of her father and as such learned Trial Court on the basis of materials has rightly convicted the accused persons.

¶39

Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Jitendra Tripathi in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1396 of 2008, learned Amicus Curiae Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008 and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Shekhar Sinha, Additional Public Prosecutor in both Cr.(Jail) Appeal, perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report, framing of charge, evidence of 8 prosecution witnesses, six prosecution exhibits, statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as two defence witnesses. This Court perused the evidence brought on record and scrutinized the same. From the evidence of P.W.1, Surendra Rai, son of the informant and the deceased and the evidence of informant, Sarju Rai P.W.3, an eye witness to the occurrence coupled with the fact that the evidence of Medical Officer, P.W.-4, Dr. Anant Kumar Jha, there is no contradiction or inconsistency in the prosecution evidence. Fardbeyan has been duly supported by the informant, Sarju Rai, P.W.3 and the evidence adduced by him during trial. The evidence of Surendra Rai, P.W.1 is also in consonance with the allegations made in the First Information Report and both have been found to be true by medical evidence, which has been proved and marked as Ext.-2. The Investigating Officer, Sunil Kumar Marandi has been examined as P.W.7, who has proved the formal F.I.R as Ext.-5 and Inquest Report as Ext.-6. The inquest report also suggest the same which is in consonance with the prosecution case. P.W.-2 Ganpat Rai is an hearsay witness, P.W.5 Suresh Tuddu and P.W.6 Mukund Rai are inquest witnesses and they have proved their signature on the inquest reports which have been

¶40

7 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 1396 of 2008 with

¶41

Criminal (Jail)Appeal(DB) No. 1225 of 2008 marked as Ext.-3 and 3/1. Though Videshi Dehri, P.W.8 has been declared hostile by the prosecution, but the evidence brought on record are consistent to the prosecution case which only shows and points the guilt towards the accused/appellants. There is an eye witness to the occurrence. The Medical evidence is also in consonance with the same.

¶42

Under the aforesaid circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment of conviction dated 04.09.2008 and order of sentence dated 05.09.2008 passed by 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Dumka in Sessions Trial No. 204 of 2007 does not warrant any interference by this Court. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is upheld and affirmed.

¶43

Under the aforesaid circumstances, both Cr.(Jail) Appeals preferred by the appellants are hereby dismissed. The appellant, Vikram Rai in Cr. (Jail)Appeal no. 1396 of 2008 and the appellant, Ratan Rai in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008, who are on bail, their bail bonds are hereby canceled and they are directed to surrender before the court below. Let Lower Court Record be sent to the court below. Before parting with this judgment, this Court appreciates the valuable assistance rendered by learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Jitendra Tripathi in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1396 of 2008 and learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh in Cr.(Jail) Appeal No. 1225 of 2008 in disposal of both the Cr.(Jail) Appeals. As such, the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to bear the legal admissible remuneration to learned Amicus Curiae within 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment along with application.

¶44

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶45

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶46

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Date 22^nd January, 2019 jk

Jitu Rai And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitu Rai And Ors. v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Firu Kachuwa Vs State of Jharkhand

Chhotelal Mahto Vs State of Jharkhand

Anjay Das And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand

Jalendra Ganjhu Alias Jalendhar Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand

Dahru Ganjhu Vs State of Jharkhand

Mankirai Boipai Vs the State of Jharkhand