Dismissed

Kerse Kora v. State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC17 Jan 2019Cr.A(DB)/322/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a conviction for murder and injury under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court upheld the trial court's judgment, relying on the appellant's confessional statement, consequential recovery of weapons from his home under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the failure of the appellant to discharge the burden of proof.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed and the judgment of the Sessions Court was affirmed.

Kerse Kora Vs State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶3

Against the judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2015 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2015 passed by Shri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 44 of 2012

¶4

Kerse Kora ….........Appellant Vrs. The State of Jharkhand ….......... Respondent ….... For the Appellant : Ms. Suchitra Pandey, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

Per Kailash Prasad Deo,J.

¶8

Heard learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Suchitra Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant and Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

The instant criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 30.1.2015 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Sessions Trial Case No. 44 of 2012, whereby the learned Trial Court has held the sole appellant Kerse Kora guilty for the offence committed and punishable under Sections 302 /201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigourous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence committed and punishable under Section 302 I.P.C and in default thereof, to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for 1 year. However, learned Trial Court has not awarded any separate sentence so far as the offence committed and punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. is concerned.

¶10

The prosecution case is based upon the fardbeyan of Informant Mahti Diggi (P.W.4) before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mahendra Baraik on the road near Sonua Police Station on 07.10.2011 at 16.30 Hours. Informant has alleged that today i.e. on 7.10. 2011 at around 9.00 AM, he got information about his daughter Sunita Diggi, wife of Kerse Kora, that her dead body has been found hanging from a tree in the village Mundri. On this information, Informant went to village Mundri and saw the in-laws of his daughter including several persons of the village Munda, Dakua and others were assembled there and his son-inlaw Kerse Kora was tied by the villagers. Informant has further stated that it was disclosed by Munda of Village Mundri that on 03.10.2011, father-in-law

¶11

2 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶12

of the daughter of the informant, Budhram Kora (court witness) has informed him that his daughter-in-law is missing and his son Kerse Kora has fled away. Upon which, they have started searching but could not found, thereafter they informed the Police on yesterday i.e., on 06.10.2011, where after Kerse Kora was caught, who has disclosed that on 02.10.2011 he had some quarrel with his wife Sunita Diggi, upon which he has assaulted her by means of lathi causing her death and thereafter he has hanged the dead body from a tree. The Informant has further stated that he went near the said tree and saw the dead body of his daughter Sunita Diggi, hanging with a sari. The Informant has stated that his son-in-law, Kerse Kora, has assaulted his daughter by means of lathi causing death and to cause disappearance of the evidence, he has hanged the dead body from the tree. The dead body was identified and was brought to the village and the husband of her daughter Kerse Kora was brought to the Police Station. The fardbeyan of the informant has been signed by Ramlal Munda and Rando Banra.

¶13

On the basis of the fardbeyan of the Informant, Police has registered, Sonua P.S. case No. 31 of 2011 dated 07.10.11 under Sections 302 /201 of the I.P.C against the sole accused Kerse Kora.

¶14

After completion of the investigation, Police has submitted charge-sheet against the sole accused Kerse Kora vide Charge-sheet No. 50 of 2011 dated 31.10.2011 under Sections 302/201 I.P.C.

¶15

Cognizance of the offence has been taken under Sections 302/201 IPC against the accused vide order dated 22.12.2011 and the case has been committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.02.2012.

¶16

The charge has been framed against the sole accused under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C vide order dated 21.11.2012 to which the accused has pleaded himself to be innocent and denied his involvement in the occurrence. Thus, he was put under trial.

¶17

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined altogether 5 prosecution witnesses and also exhibited number of documentary evidence up to Ext. 8. The Court has also examined the father of the appellant Budhram Kora as Court Witness. Ram Lal Kora has been examined as P.W.1 but his signature on the fardbeyan, seizure list and search-cum-seizure list have been shown as Ram Lal Munda; Rando Banra has been examined as P.W.2; Vinod Kumar Pandit, the Medical Officer has been examined as P.W.3; Mahti Diggi, father of the victim and informant of the case has been examined as P.W.4;

¶18

3 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶19

Mahendra Baraik, Sub Inspector of Police and Investigating Officer of the case has been examined as P.W.5.

¶20

Signature of Ram Lal Kora (P.W.1) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.1; signature of Rando Banra (P.W.2) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.1/1; signature of Mahti Diggi (P.W.4) on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.1/2; fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.1/3; endorsement on the fardbeyan has been proved and marked as Ext.1/4; signature of Ram Lal Kora(PW.1) on the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.2; signatures of Rando Banra(P.W.2) on the seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.2/1; seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.2/2; Signature of Ram Lal Kora(P.W.1) on the search- cumseizure list has been proved and marked Ext.3; signatures of Rando Banra(P.W.2) on the search-cum-seizure list has been proved and marked as 3/1; search cum seizure list has been proved and marked as Ext.3/2; Post Mortem report has been proved and marked as Ext.4; formal F.I.R has been proved and marked as Ext. 5; Inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext. 6; confessional statement of accused Kerse Kora has been proved and marked as Ext.7; State forensic science laboratory report has been proved and marked as Ext.8. All these exhibits have been proved by the prosecution without any objection from the defence. Budhram Kora, father of the accused has been examined as Court Witness.

¶21

After closure of the prosecution evidence, accused Kerse Kora has been examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on 09.01.2015 where he has denied his involvement in the occurrence but no defence witness or document has been exhibited on behalf of the defence.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the materials available on record, learned Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence holding the appellant guilty under sections 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded rigourous imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence committed and punishable under section 302 IPC and in default thereof, to further undergo rigourous imprisonment for 1 year. However, learned Trial Court has not awarded any separate sentence for the offence committed and punishable under Section 201 of the I.P.C.

¶23

Being aggrieved at and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, appellant has preferred the present Criminal

¶24

4 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶25

(Jail) Appeal before this Court on 14.05.2015, which was admitted on 16.10.2015 and Ms. Suchitra Pandey has been appointed as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court.

¶26

Heard learned Amicus Curiae, Ms. Suchitra Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant and Learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law and cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Learned Amicus Curiae has submitted that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and conviction of the appellant husband is only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, though the chain of circumstances is not complete and has not been proved by the prosecution. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the ground that he is the husband of the deceased and as such learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the ground that the wife has been murdered, but no information was given to the Police and the accused has confessed his guilt before the Police. There is no sufficient materials to prove the guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302/201 I.P.C. against the appellant. The Investigating Officer has not investigated the case and collected the materials to prove the case beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts against the appellant. Learned Amicus Curiae has further submitted that the appellant, who has remained in custody from the date of institution of the case may be given benefit of doubt and may be acquitted from the charge and conviction under Section 302/201 I.P.C.

¶28

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence has been passed by the learned Trial Court on the basis of materials available on record. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the accused / appellant Kerse Kora is the husband of the deceased Sunita Diggi and the accused has confessed his guilt and confessional statement of the accused has been proved and marked as Ext.-7. On the basis of confessional statement of the accused, blood stained lathi, blood stained banyan and blood stained blanket (woolen kambal), have been recovered from the house of this accused / appellant. As such there is sufficient material under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as reported in the case of Mehboob Ali & another Vrs. State of Rajasthan [ (2016) 14 SCC 640 ]. The relevant para 13 to 17 are quoted

¶29

5 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶30

here under:

¶31

13. For application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the discovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. In a statement if something new is discovered or recovered from the accused which was not in the knowledge of the police before disclosure statement of the accused is recorded, is admissible in the evidence. 14. Section 27 of the Evidence Act refers when any “fact” is deposed. Fact has been defined in Section 3 of the Act. Same is quoted below: “‘ Fact ’.— ‘Fact’ means and includes—

¶32

(1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being

¶33

perceived by the senses;

¶34

(2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations

¶35

(a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a

¶36

certain place, is a fact.

¶37

(b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact.

¶38

(c) That a man said certain words, is a fact.

¶39

(d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact.

¶40

(e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.

¶41

‘ Relevant ’.—One fact is said to be relevant to another when the one is connected with the other in any of the ways referred to in the provisions of this Act relating to the relevancy of facts.”

¶42

15. It is apparent that on the basis of the information furnished by accused Mehboob Ali and Firoz and other accused, Anju Ali was arrested. The fact that Anju Ali was dealing with forged currency notes was not to the knowledge of the police. The statement of both the accused has led to discovery of fact and arrest of co-accused not known to police. They identified him and ultimately statements have led to unearthing the racket of use of fake currency notes. Thus the information furnished by the aforesaid accused persons vide information memos is clearly admissible which has led to the identification and arrest of accused Anju Ali and as already stated from possession of Anju Ali fake currency notes had been recovered. As per information furnished by accused Mehboob and Firoz vide memos Exts. P- 41 and P-42, the fact has been discovered by police as to the involvement of accused Anju Ali which was not to the knowledge of the police. Police was not aware of accused Anju Ali as well as the fact that he was dealing with fake currency notes which were recovered from him. Thus the statement of the aforesaid accused Mehboob and Firoz is clearly saved by Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The embargo put by Section 27 of the Evidence Act was clearly lifted in the instant case. The statement of the accused persons has led to the discovery of fact proving complicity of the other accused persons and the entire chain of circumstances clearly makes out that the accused acted in conspiracy as found by the trial court as well as the High Court.

¶43

16. This Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu has considered the question of discovery of a fact referred to in Section 27. This Court has considered plethora of decisions and explained the decision in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor and held thus: (Navjot Sandhu case, SCC p. 704, paras 125-27)

¶44

“125. We are of the view that Kottaya case is an authority for the proposition that ‘discovery of fact’ cannot be equated to the object produced or found. It is more than that. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the

¶45

6 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶46

mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place.

¶47

126. We now turn our attention to the precedents of this Court which followed the track of Kottaya case. The ratio of the decision in Kottaya case reflected in the underlined passage extracted supra was highlighted in several decisions of this Court.

¶48

127. The crux of the ratio in Kottaya case was explained by this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Damu. Thomas, J. observed that: (SCC p. 283, para 35)

¶49

‘35. … The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the “fact discovered” envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.’

¶50

In Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra, Sarkaria, J. while clarifying that the expression ‘fact discovered’ in Section 27 is not restricted to a physical or material fact which can be perceived by the senses, and that it does include a mental fact, explained the meaning by giving the gist of what was laid down in Pulukuri Kottaya case. The learned Judge, speaking for the Bench observed thus: (SCC p. 832, para 13)

¶51

‘13. … Now it is fairly settled that the expression “fact discovered” includes not only the physical object produced, but also the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this (see Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor; Udai Bhan v. State of U.P.).’”

¶52

17. In State of Maharashtra v. Damu the statement made by the accused that the dead body of the child was carried up to a particular spot and a broken glass piece recovered from the spot was found to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of co-accused alleged to be used for the said purpose. The statement leading to the discovery of a fact that the accused had carried dead body by a particular motorcycle up to the said spot would be admissible in evidence. This Court has laid down thus: (SCC pp. 282-83, paras 35-38)

¶53

“35. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered in a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature, but if it results in discovery of a fact it becomes a reliable information. Hence the legislature permitted such information to be used as evidence by restricting the admissible portion to the minimum. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of a fact as envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor is the most quoted authority for supporting the interpretation that the ‘fact discovered’ envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect.

¶54

36. No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which ‘distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered’. But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of information admitted should be consistent with understandability. In this case, the fact discovered by PW 44 is that A-3 Mukinda Thorat had carried the dead body of Dipak to the spot on the motorcycle.

¶55

37. How did the particular information lead to the discovery of the fact? No doubt, recovery of dead body of Dipak from the same canal was antecedent to the information which PW 44 obtained. If nothing more was recovered pursuant to and subsequent to obtaining the information from the accused, there would not have been any discovery of any fact at all. But when the broken glass piece was recovered from that spot and that piece was found

¶56

7 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶57

to be part of the tail lamp of the motorcycle of A-2 Guruji, it can safely be held that the investigating officer discovered the fact that A-2 Guruji had carried the dead body on that particular motorcycle up to the spot.

¶58

38. In view of the said discovery of the fact, we are inclined to hold that the information supplied by A-2 Guruji that the dead body of Dipak was carried on the motorcycle up to the particular spot is admissible in evidence. That information, therefore, proves the prosecution case to the abovementioned extent.”

¶59

The lady has been killed and Doctor has found corresponding head injury, as confessed by the accused in his confessional statement, the same has been found in the postmortem report, proved and marked as Ext. 4. Learned counsel for the State has further submitted, that the father of the accused has disclosed about the occurrence to the village Pradhan (PW-1). Since then, the accused / appellant has fled away, who was subsequently caught by the villagers and in the presence of village Munda, appellant has confessed his guilt and on the disclosure made by the accused, dead body of the victim was found and subsequently, the weapon of assault, cloth for concealing the dead body have been found from the house of the accused / appellant. As such, learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the charge under sections 302 / 201 of the Indian Penal Code, which does not warrant any interference by this court.

¶60

Heard learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Suchitra Pandey, appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel for the State Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, Additional Public Prosecutor; perused the materials available on record including fardbeyan of the informant (PW-4) Mahti Diggi recorded by the police on 07.10.2011. The informant has categorically stated that he was informed about missing of his daughter on 07.10.2011. When he came to the sasural of his daughter, at that time, his daughter was missing from the house. PW-4 has stated during examination-in-chief that when he was informed by the village Munda, he went to village Mundri and saw the dead body of his daughter hanging from a tree. He also went to the house of his son-in-law and saw blood stain in his house where Munda and other were also present and his son-in-law was caught by Munda and Manki of the village, but this witness has been declared hostile by the prosecution as he has stated that his fardbeyan has not been recorded by the police. Though, evidence of this hostile witness cannot be discarded but has to be read with care and caution. Informant has stated in his examination in chief, which also shows the guilt of the accused Kerse Kora in commission of murder of his wife. PW-1 Ram Lal Kora is the

¶61

8 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶62

Munda of village Mundri. He has proved his signatures on the fardbeyan and on the seizure list as well as on the search-cum-seizure list dated 08.10.2011, which have been proved and marked as Ext. 1 and 3 respectively. This witness has categorically stated that Budhram Kora (Court Witness) / father of the accused came before him and disclosed that his son has killed his wife and hanged her dead body from a tree. Thereafter, they went to the place where the dead body was hanging and informed, the informant and the Police. PW-2 Rando Banra has proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1/1. He has also proved his signature on the seizure list of blood stained soil recovered from the place of occurrence, which has been marked as Ext.2/1. This witness has also proved his signature on search cum seizure of wooden sakhua log, blood stained banyan and blood stained woolen kambal which has been marked as Ext.-3/1. This witness has stated that he is the Dakua of Mundri village and as per the information disclosed by the father of the accused Kerse Kora, Budhram Kora (Court Witness) regarding missing of his daughter-in-law and son in presence of Munda of village Ram Lal Kora, search was conducted and dead body of Sunita Diggi was found hanging from a tree. This witness has further stated that in the presence of villagers namely Suresh Kora and others, accused has confessed his guilt and on the basis of disclosure made by Kerse Kora, lathi, blood stained kambal have been seized from the house of the appellant.

¶63

This Court has perused the post mortem report, which has been proved and marked as Ext. 4. As per the post mortem report time since death is more than 48 hours but within 7 days. Following injuries have been found on the body of the deceased: (i) Lacerated wound on scalp on left side with fracture of parietal and temporal bone. Blood clot present in wound bed;(ii) Ligature mark present on neck running horizontally. Knot mark present on right side. Doctor has categorically stated that cause of death is head and chest injury caused by hard and blunt object. During his cross examination, he has categorically stated that hard stone may be stone, lathi and hammer or any solid substance. Mahendra Baraik P.W.5 is the investigating officer of the case and has proved the fardbeyan with his signature, which has been marked as Ext.1/3 and also proved his endorsement on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.1/4. Formal FIR signed by writer Constable Joginder Prasad has been proved and marked as Ext.5. Inquest report has been proved and marked as Ext.6. The confessional statement of the accused has been proved and marked

¶64

9 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶65

as Ext.7. The place of occurrence has been described by the Investigating Officer in para 7 of his deposition as situated within Sonwa Police Station in Village Mundri in the house of Kerse Kora built of tiles and soil. He has found marks of blood, attempt was made to be wiped the same by means of cow dung. He has proved the seizure list of blood stained soil, which has been marked as Ext. 2/2 and also proved the search cum seizure list of blood stained banyan, blood stained lathi and blood stained woolen blanket, which has been marked as Ext. 3/2. One of the copy of the same has been served upon the accused. The blood stained lathi, banyan and soil have been sent before the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ranchi by the order of the Court. This witness has been cross examined by the defence. During cross examination, he has stated that he has not recorded statement of Budhram Kora during investigation. In para 18 of his cross examination this witness has further stated that there was no missing report or sanha entry was made with regard to missing of Sunita Diggi since second date of the month. He has categorically stated that he has not seized the sari which was used for hanging the deceased nor he has tried to examine the finger print found on seized wooden lathi. He has not found any eye witness to the occurrence nor has investigated the case with regard to banyan of the accused. This witness has further stated that confessional statement of the accused was recorded at the Police Station, which does not bear signature of any of the witness. Father of the accused Budhram Kora has been examined as court witness, who has stated that his son Kerse Kora is in custody in the case of murder of his wife, whose murder has been committed 4 years ago and the dead body was found in Hesel Buru forest hanging from a tree. This witness has further stead that Kerse Kora was living with his wife separately and after 3 days of the occurrence, he was informed by the village Munda Ram Lal Kora that dead body of a female of my house has been found in the jungle. He has no information that who has killed, the wife of his son. This witness has stated in his cross examination that on the basis of notice issued by the learned Trial Court, he has come for examining as Court Witness.

¶66

This Court has minutely scrutinized the evidences of the prosecution witnesses. The appellant has failed to discharge onus as envisaged under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as he could not prove his innocence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act says:

¶67

“ Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge .-When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him”.

¶68

10 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶69

As per the material brought on record, Sunita Diggi was living with this appellant Kerse Kora separately in his house who was missing for more than 4/5 days but no information was given by this accused Kerse Kora either before the Police or before the Informant about missing of his wife, rather as per confessional statement of this accused, the Police has recovered blood stained lathi, banyan and woolen kambal from the house of the accused / appellant, which has been proved and marked as exhibits. The prosecution has been able to prove the complete chain of circumstances from missing of the girl and after getting the dead body of the girl hanging from a tree. The matter was inquired in presence of villagers before whom accused kerse Kora has admitted his guilt. He was caught by the villagers and handed over to the Police in the presence of the Informant and thereafter in the presence of the Police, he has confessed his guilt leading to recovery of weapon of assault i.e. , blood stained wooden log, blood stained banyan and blood stained blanket from the house, which comes under purview of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and the judgment cited by the State Counsel in the case of Mehboob Ali & another (supra) is applicable. The post mortem report shows that deceased has died because of the assault made on the head, which caused fracture of parietal bone. The Investigating Officer has found that attempt was made by the accused in wiping out mark of blood from place of occurrence for causing disappearance of evidence from the room by putting cow dung at the place of occurrence. This circumstance proved that the prosecution has been able to prove the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶70

During recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C, accused / appellant could not explain the situation regarding missing of his wife as well as satisfactory reply with regard to recovery of blood stained lathi, banyan and Kambal. The Forensic Science Laboratory has also found the blood to be of human female and as such prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt against the appellant Kerse Kora, which does not require any interference by this Hon’ble Court.

¶71

Under the aforesaid circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 30.01.2015 and order of sentence dated 05.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial Case No.44 of 2012 by learned Sessions Judge, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa is hereby upheld and affirmed. In the result, the present criminal appeal is dismissed.

¶72

Let the Lower Court Record be sent to the court below forthwith.

¶73

11 Criminal (Jail) Appeal (DB) No. 322 of 2015

¶74

Before parting with the judgment, this Court records its appreciation for the valuable assistance provided by the learned Amicus Curiae Ms. Suchitra Pandey, Advocate in disposal of this case. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee is directed to release the legally admissible remuneration to the learned Amicus Curiae within 4 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment along with an application submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae.

¶75

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.)

¶76

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶77

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Date 17^th January, 2019 A.Mohanty/

Kerse Kora v. State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kerse Kora 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

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

Rengo Kurli And Ors. Vs State of Bihar

Firu Kachuwa Vs State of Jharkhand