Dismissed

Rengo Kurli And Ors. v. State of Bihar

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2019Cr.A(DB)/147/1996

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal of the sole surviving appellant after noting the death of three co-appellants, causing abatement of their appeals. Upholding the lower court's conviction for murder and abetting, the court found the minor child eyewitness and medical testimony reliable, affirming the life sentence.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed; the conviction and sentence are upheld; the appellant's bail bond is cancelled, and he is directed to surrender to serve the remainder of his sentence.

Rengo Kurli And Ors. Vs State of Bihar — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 147 of 1996 (R)

¶2

-----

¶3

Rengo Kurli

¶4

Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu

¶5

Natho Ho @ Nuni Chatu

¶6

Budhu Ho --- --- Appellants

Versus

The State of Bihar

--- --- Opp. Party.

PRESENT

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kailash Prasad Deo

¶13

--For the Appellants : Mr. Mokhtar Ahmad, Adv. For the State : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, A.P.P. ---

¶14

Per Kailash Prasad Deo, J.

¶15

A report has been placed on record at Flag-X dated 14^th January 2019 furnished by the Officer In-charge, Kharsawan Police Station, District Seraikella-Kharsawan regarding the status of the four appellants, whether they are alive or dead. As per the report, except appellant no.2 namely Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu, other three appellants have died during pendency of this criminal appeal. No application for grant of leave under Section 394 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the legal heirs or relatives of the deceased appellants within 30 days of their death to pursue the appeal. As such, the appeal as against deceased appellants stands abated. The instant appeal is being heard as against the sole surviving appellant no.2 namely Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu.

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Mokhtar Ahmad and learned counsel for the State Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶17

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by four convicts namely (1) Rengo Kurli, (2) Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu, (3) Natho Ho @ Nuni Chatu and (4) Budhu Ho against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 5^th July 1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Seraikella in Sessions Trial No.64/1991 whereby all the four accused Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu, Natho Ho @ Nuni Chatu, Budhu Ho and

¶18

-2-

¶19

Rengo Kurli are held guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded imprisonment for life for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302/34 I.P.C. and also awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.300/- each for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201/34 I.P.C. and in default in payment thereof, convicts shall have to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Though these convicts / accused persons have been acquitted with other co-accused persons facing trial namely Gaju Kurli, Dubu Kurli and Motai Bodra from the charge under Section 380/34 I.P.C. and Gaju Kurli, Dubu Kurli and Motai Bodra have also been acquitted from the charge under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 I.P.C. Nathu Ram Ho- appellant has also been acquitted from the charges under Section 411 I.P.C. During pendency of the appeal other three appellants namely Rengo Kurli, Natho Ho @ Nuni Chatu and Budhu Ho have died and the appeal preferred by them stands abated. So far as the present criminal appeal is concerned, the same is pending with respect to appellant no.2 namely Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu.

¶20

The prosecution case is based upon the Fardbeyan of Most. Sumi Kui (P.W.7) wife of Late Pandu Ho, recorded by Officer-in-charge of Kharsawan Police Station in presence of village Mukhiya Ganesh Prasad Singhdeo (P.W.1) and Dalpati Aditya Pratap Singhdeo (P.W.2) at 2 P.M. on Saturday (16.06.1990) wherein the informant has stated, that on Friday i.e. 15.06.1990 the informant went to her parental house at village Silaidih. The informant has stated, that today at about 12.30 p.m. her son Meke Ho (P.W.5) and daughter Hira Muni (P.W.6) came running to her and disclosed that at about 12.00 noon while husband of the informant Pandu Ho, elder brother-inlaw of the informant Milu Ho and father-in-law of the informant Natho Ho were taking liquor under a Mahua tree, near their house in the village, covillagers namely (1) Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu (appellant) (2) Budhu Ho, both sons of Late Soma Ho (3) Natho @ Nuni Chatu son of Ruiya Ho and (4) Rengo Kurli son of Soma Kurli having Dauli, Lathi came there and chopped off the neck of husband, elder brother-in-law and father-in-law of the informant in sitting position. It is further stated that co-villagers namely Ganjo Kurli, Dubu Kurli son of Soma Kurli, Motai Bodra son of Late Gudhwa

¶21

-3-

¶22

Bodra and Rajesh Hembrom son-in-law of Budhu, son of Ravidas Hembrom also came running there with Lathi upon which son and daughter of the informant came running before her and disclosed that all three persons have been killed and their dead bodies have been taken towards Doro forest. The informant has alleged that occurrence took place because of three Bigha of land recorded Sikmi in the name of her father-in-law Natho Ho and the same was claimed by accused Budhu Ho, Nathu Ram Ho, Rengo Kurli and Motai by claiming that they have developed this land by cutting forest, which has been grabbed by the father-in-law of the informant and as such these three elder people have been killed and their dead bodies have been disposed of in the forest. It is further stated that the accused persons have subsequently taken away from the house of the informant several bronze utensils worth Rs.625/-. The informant has claimed that now in the entire family, two sons and two daughters have been left. The occurrence has been witnessed by a number of co-villagers.

¶23

On the basis of the Fardbeyan of the informant, the Police has registered Kharsawan P.S. Case No.23/1990 dated 16.06.1990 under Sections 147/148/149/302/201/380 of the Indian Penal Code against eight named accused persons.

¶24

After completion of investigation, Police has submitted chargesheet vide no.25/90 dated 31^st July 1990 against altogether eight named accused persons under Sections 302/201/380/461/34 I.P.C.

¶25

The cognizance of the offence has been taken vide order dated 16.08.1990 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.01.1991.

¶26

The charge has been framed against all the eight accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34, 380/34 I.P.C. and Nathu Ram Ho has separately been charged also under Section 411 I.P.C. vide order dated 28^th August 1992.

¶27

During trial accused Rajesh Hembrom has died and his case has been dropped vide order dated 21.04.1995 and thus seven accused persons were facing trial.

¶28

-4-

¶29

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven prosecution witnesses and also exhibited a number of documentary evidence up to Exbt. 2 series. Ganesh Prasad Singhdeo, Mukhiya of the village, has been examined as P.W.1. Aditya Pratap Singhdeo, Dalpati of the village, has been examined as P.W.2 and Ram Chandra Jamda has been examined as P.W.3. All these three prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of prosecution and thus, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Pati, Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.4, who has conducted Post Mortem examination of all the three dead bodies, has proved the post-mortem reports as Exbt.2 series. Meke Ho (son of the informant) has been examined as P.W.5 but has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has not supported the prosecution case. Hira Muni, daughter of the informant and sole eye-witness to the occurrence, has been examined as P.W.6. Sumi Kui informant has been examined as P.W.7.

¶30

Signatures of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the carbon copies of inquest report have been proved and marked as Exbts.1 to 1/2 and 1/5 to 1/7; signatures of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the seizure list have been proved and marked as Exbts.1/3 to 1/4 ; signatures of P.W.1 and P.W.2 on the Fardbeyan have been proved and marked as Exbts.1/8 to 1/9.

¶31

All these documents have been exhibited without objection. After closure of the prosecution evidence the appellant has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C on 19.2.1996, where he has claimed himself to be innocent and has denied about his involvement in the occurrence, though, no defence witness or evidence oral or documentary have been brought on record to dispel the prosecution case.

¶32

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of materials available on record, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant along with others, under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. Out of four convicts, three have already died during pendency of this appeal and as such, the present criminal appeal is being heard and disposed of against surviving appellant, Nathu Ram Ho @ Bara Chatu

¶33

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Mokhtar Ahmad and learned counsel for the State Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, Additional

¶34

-5-

¶35

Public Prosecutor and perused the materials brought on record including the First Information Report framing of charge, evidence of seven prosecution witnesses, two prosecution exhibits, statement of appellant recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C as well as impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶36

From perusal of materials brought on record, it appears that entire prosecution case revolves around evidence of P.W.-6, Hira Muni, daughter of the informant, who has claimed herself to be an eye witness to the occurrence. This witness has informed her mother Sumi Kui, informant of the case and their statements are consistent to each other. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of Hira Muni, who is a minor child and as such this Court has taken judicial notice of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Evidence of this child witness has been closely scrutinized and found to be reliable for holding conviction as the evidence of this witness is consistent to the information she disclosed before her mother, Sumi Kui, informant of this case, on the basis of whose Fardbeyan First Information Report has been lodged. The present case is a case where three persons, who are father, uncle and grandfather of this child witness, Hira Muni (P.W.6) has been chopped off by the appellant and others. The dead bodies were taken away and the same were buried. During investigation, the dead bodies were recovered and two of the dead bodies were found beheaded and the dead bodies have been identified by P.W.6, Hira Muni and P.W.7, Sumi Kui, informant of the case. The other prosecution witnesses though have not supported the case of the prosecution such as P.W.1, Ganesh Prasad Singhdeo (Mukhiya), P.W.2, Aditya Pratap Singhdeo (Dalpati), P.W.3 Ram Chandra Jamda as well as son of the informant, Meke Ho (P.W.5), but the evidence of Hira Muni is consistent to the medical evidence which has been proved by P.W.4 Dr. Pradeep Kumar Pati and the postmortem report of all the three victims have been brought on record as Ext.-2 series. The post-mortem report of the victim Pandu Ho has been marked as Ext.2 which shows the following injuries :-

¶37

Incised wound over right side of forehead (2” X ½” bone deep) C fracture of right frontal bone caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶38

Incised wound over middle of forehead (1” X ½” X bone deep) with fracture of underlying bone caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶39

-6-

¶40

Incised wound over left fronto temporal region (1½” X ½” X bone deep) with fracture of underlying bone caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶41

Incised wound (2” X ½” bone deep) left occipital region caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶42

There was intracranial hemorrhage underneath the frontal & occipital region.

¶43

Abrasion (1 ½” X 1”) over left leg below knee-caused by hard blunt substance.

¶44

2 abrasion over right leg (rach of 1” X 1”) one inch apart caused by hard blunt substance.

¶45

In my opinion, death was due to shock & hemorrhage resulting from injuries inflictor upon the body.

¶46

The injuries were all antemortem in nature, sufficient to cause death in normal course of events.

¶47

Time elapsed since death approx. within 36 (thirty six) hours.

¶48

The post-mortem report of the victim Natho Ho has been marked as

¶49

Ext.2/1 which shows the following injuries :-

¶50

Headless trunk with incised wound in an encircling manner through the whole of neck, cutting all the neck musculature, vessels nerves, windpipe & oesophagus.

¶51

Caused by sharp cutting weapon.

¶52

In my opinion, death was due to sock & excessive hemorrhage resulting from the injury inflictor upon the body.

¶53

The injury was antemortem in nature, sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature.

¶54

Time elapsed since death approx. within 36 (thirty six) hours.

¶55

The post-mortem report of the victim Milu Ho has been marked as

¶56

Ext.2/2 which shows the following injuries :-

¶57

Headless trunk with incised wound in an encircling manner through the whole of neck, cutting all the neck musculature, vessels nerves, windpipe & oesophagus.

¶58

Caused by sharp cutting weapon. Abrasion (2” X 1”) over right shoulder joint.

¶59

Caused by hard blunt substance.

¶60

In my opinion, death was due to shock & hemorrhage resulting from injury inflictor upon the body.

¶61

The injuries were antemortem in nature, sufficient to cause death in normal caurse of events.

¶62

Time elapsed since death approx. within 36 (thirty six) hours.

¶63

From the evidence of P.W.6 it appears that the evidence of eyewitness is consistent so far as the death of these three victims are concerned.

¶64

The medical evidence is in complete corroboration to the oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

¶65

-7-

¶66

This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant, that P.W.6 Hira Muni is a child witness and her testimony cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant. This Court has taken notice of Section 118 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The testimony of the witness is wholly reliable as nothing has been stated by this witness which seems to be a tutored version. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the evidence adduced by the child witness Hira Muni (P.W.6) is reliable for passing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶67

The defence has cross-examined these two witnesses namely Hira Muni (P.W.6) and Sumi Kui (P.W.7), but nothing have been elicited to disbelieve the prosecution case. Considering the evidence of these two witnesses coupled with the medical evidence which has been brought on record as Ext.-2 series, this Court is of the opinion that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial Court does not require any interference by this Court. The prosecution story as made out by P.W.7 Sumi Kui in her Fardbeyan is consistent to her evidence as P.W.7 which is on the basis of information disclosed by Hira Muni. As such, seeing the consistency in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which is in consonance with the Fardbeyan of the informant, the prosecution has been able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant who has killed three persons along with others, with whom they have land dispute. As such, the appellant and others have motive to commit such crime.

¶68

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence both dated 5^th July 1996 passed by Additional Sessions Judge at Seraikella in Sessions Trial No. 64/1991 is hereby upheld and affirmed. Accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant is hereby dismissed. The appellant is on bail, his bail bond is hereby cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the court below to serve out rest of the sentence awarded by learned trial court.

¶69

Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶70

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶71

Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi Dated: 17^th January, 2019 Shamim/

Rengo Kurli And Ors. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rengo Kurli And Ors. v. State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeno Tanti Alias Roje Tanti Alias Mangala Vs State of Jharkhand

Jongol Singh Kuntia Vs State of Jharkhand

Doba Hembrom Alias Hura Vs the State of Jharkhand

Khudia Pahan And Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Kerse Kora Vs State of Jharkhand

Firu Kachuwa Vs State of Jharkhand