Dismissed

Ajay Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC1 Apr 2019Cr.A(DB)/65/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against conviction for murder. High Court examined evidence including confessional statement resulting in weapon recovery and medical report confirming injuries likely to cause death. Court found evidence sufficient to prove intention to kill under section 300 IPC, upholding conviction and sentence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and order of sentence under section 302 IPC are upheld; appeal dismissed without merit; records sent down.

Ajay Kujur Vs the State of Jharkhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 65 of 2014

¶3

Against the judgment of conviction dated 06.07.2005 and order of sentence dated 13.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C-I), Gumla in Sessions Trial Case No. 208/2004.

¶4

For the Appellant: Mrs. Anshu Dubey, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent: Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, A.P.P.

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

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

¶7

By Court: Heard learned Amicus Curiae Mrs. Anshu Dubey, appointed by JHALSA to represent the appellant in the instant appeal and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Gauri Shankar Prasad, representing the State.

¶8

This appellant who faced trial for the murder of his own father stands convicted by the impugned judgment dated 06.07.2005 passed in Sessions Trial Case No. 208/2004 by the learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.-I), Gumla and is undergoing incarceration since 28.03.2004 during trial and after the order of sentence dated 13.07.2005 for life under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶9

The informant is Pradeep Kujur (P.W.6), son of the deceased and own brother of the appellant, whose fardbeyan was recorded at 11.00 hrs on 23.03.2004 by the Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary of Dumari P.S. at village Rudrapur. The gist of the allegation, as contained in his fardbeyan, is as under:

¶10

The informant stated that on 22.03.2004 he had gone towards Sukhatala Nala which is in north of his house at around 7.00 am for looking after his paddy field and in course of the day at 3.30 pm, wife of a co-villager, Rottrick Kujur came running and informed him that the informant’s brother Ajay Kujur (accused) has killed his father. The informant rushed towards his house and saw his father Vincent Kujur aged about 85 years lying dead and blood splattered out of his head. On being asked, his wife Susana Kujur told him that while she was coming to her house in the village through a narrow lane at around quarter to 3.00 pm, she heard cries of the father (Baba) ‘Mat-Mat Maro (don’ kill don’t kill) and she rushed on the said cries to the courtyard. She saw that Ajay Kujur (accused) was coming out with a blood stained kulhari (sharp cutting weapon) and he on seeing the wife of the informant, threatened her to leave, otherwise she would also be killed. She fled away and

¶11

¶12

started raising brawl that Ajay had killed his father (Baba). On hearing brawl, a number of villagers assembled and they saw Ajay holding a Kulhari in his hand running towards Bitri Pahad (hill) in the east. The informant attributes the reason for the occurrence as under:

¶13

It is asserted by him that his father was a retired Army Man and used to stay in his house. The informant are three brothers, out of whom, the middle one Roshan Kujur stays in Delhi for earning his livelihood and he and his younger brother Ajay stay at house. There was a land dispute amongst the three brothers since before and they are staying separately. Informant stated that his father used to insist upon him to engage himself in some work and refused to part away with his pension amount. This often lead to brawl and altercation and the accused Ajay often used to say that this old man does not allow him proper food and nutrition. Narrating the reasons behind the occurrence, the informant further asserted that yesterday on finding his father alone, Ajay assaulted him with Kulhari (sharping cutting weapon) and killed him and thereafter ran away towards the east of Bitri Pahad.

¶14

The fardbeyan disclosed a serious cognizable offence and therefore, Dumri P.S. Case No. 06/2004 was registered on 23.03.2004 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused Ajay Kujur (appellant). Investigation was handed over to the Sub Inspector Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary, who has appeared as P.W.1 during trial and supported the prosecution case. Investigation found the case to be true and lead to filing of charge sheet bearing no. 16/2004 on 28.06.2004 under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the sole accused in which eleven persons were cited as witnesses. After cognizance and commitment, learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.-I) Gumla framed charge against the sole accused under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which were read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Thus, trial commenced for the murder of his own father i.e. patricide.

¶15

Prosecution examined ten witnesses, as under:

¶16

P.W.1: Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary P.W.2: Santosh Kumar Gupta P.W.3: Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary P.W.4: Susana Kujur P.W.5: Pitar Kujur P.W.6: Pradeep Kujur P.W.7: Arenius Lakra P.W.8: Cyprion Toppo P.W.9: Shamual Kujur P.W.10: Jems Beck

¶17

Further, it adduced documentary evidence up to Ext.13 as under:

¶18

Ext.1: Fardbeyan proved by P.W.1 Ext.2: Inquest Report proved by P.W.1 Ext.3: Seizure List of blood stained soil, proved by P.W.1

¶19

¶20

Ext.4: Formal FIR proved by P.W.1 Ext.5: Seizure List of Axe proved by P.W.2 Ext.6: Post-mortem Report proved by P.W.3 Ext.7: P.W.4 Susana Kujur proved her statement under section 164 of the Cr.PC. Ext.8: P.W.5 Peter Kujur proved his signature on the inquest report Ext.8/1: P.W.9 Shamuel Kujur proved his signature on inquest report. Ext.9: P.W.6 Pradeep Kujur proved his signature on his fardbeyan Ext.10:P.W.6 Pradeep Kujur proved his signature on the statement made under section 164 of the Cr.PC Ext.11&11/1: P.W.7 Arenius Lakra and P.W.9 Shamuel Kujur proved their signature on Seizure List of blood stained soil Ext.12:P.W.8 Cyprion Topp proved his signature on Seizure List of blood stained Axe Ext.13:P.W.10 Jems Beck proved his signature on the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Kujur.

¶21

After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 of the Cr.PC where he denied his involvement and stated that he was innocent. He also stated that his father died a natural death and he had not killed him.

¶22

However, learned Sessions Court was satisfied that the prosecution case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused was liable for being convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for killing his own father by means of a sharping cutting weapon. The injuries inflicted by the accused were found to be corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W. 3 Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary who had conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased on 23.03.2004 itself at 5.00 pm. Thus, he was convicted. Appellant is suffering custody after his conviction and order of sentence for life and had not preferred any appeal for almost nine years.

¶23

When the matter was taken up by JHALSA, the instant appeal was filed with a delay of 3068 days. However, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to condone the delay by order dated 13.04.2015. Appellant’s prayer for suspension of sentence was rejected by order dated 06.08.2015 and as such, till date, appellant seems to have suffered custody for 15 years and few days more. As per the report of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC-I), Gumla dated 02.03.2019, appellant is suffering custody at Birsa Munda Central Jail, Hotwar, Ranchi.

¶24

Both learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecution have taken us in their own way through the evidence on record to support the challenge to the impugned findings or to support the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court against the sole accused, appellant herein. We have also scanned the evidence on record carefully and find that there are four material prosecution witnesses i.e. P.Ws-4, 8, 10 including P.W.6., informant and the

¶25

¶26

Medical Evidence of P.W.3. However, while adverting to the case of the parties, we would touch upon the other prosecution witnesses also who have deposed in their support of the prosecution case.

¶27

P.W.1- Sudhir Kumar Chaudhary who had recorded the fardbeyan of the informant and was entrusted with the investigation, proved the fardbeyan of the informant which was marked as Ext.1. He had also proved the inquest report prepared in his hand writing, which has been marked as Ext.2. This witness had collected the blood stained soil and the seizure list was proved by him, which was marked as Ext.3. He has also proved the signature of the Officer-in-Charge on the formal FIR, which has been marked as Ext.4. He has also described the place of occurrence i.e. house of the informant where the dead body was found. House of the accused is in the west of the house of the informant and adjacent thereto towards the north is the passage connecting the courtyard to the village. He had also recorded the statement of Susana Kujur, Shamuel Kujur and Peter Kujur who are P.Ws-4, 9 and 5.

¶28

P.W.2 is Santosh Kumar Gupta, another Investigating Officer who has proved the seizure list of Axe which has been marked as Ext.5, recovered on the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Kujur recorded by the Officer-inCharge Ajay Kumar Singh. Witnesses Pradeep Kujur and Susana Kujur had made statement under section 164 of the Cr.PC before the learned Judicial Magistrate which were proved and marked as Ext.10 and 7 respectively by P.W.6 and 4 Pradeep Kujur and Susana Kujur respectively. On being asked in cross-examination, this witness had denied that he had sent the blood stained Kulhari and blood stained soil for forensic examination.

¶29

P.W.3 is Dr. Kameshwar Nath Tiwary who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Vincent Kujur aged about 85 years on 23.03.2004 at 5.00 pm. He has proved the post-mortem report which has been marked as Ext.6. During post-mortem examination, he found the following injuries – external and on dissection of the corpus of the deceased. According to him, death was due to head injury particularly injury no. 1. As per his opinion, all the injuries are ante mortem in nature caused by a sharp cutting substance like Axe. Time elapsed since death – within 24-36 hours. In his cross-examination, he reiterated that all injuries are by sharp cutting weapon like Axe or any sharp cutting substance and could not be caused due to assault by back of tangi. The extract of the post-mortem report is reproduced hereunder for better appreciation.

¶30

“i. Incised wound 4”x1”xcranial cavity deep present over the left post auricular area of the temporal bone.

¶31

¶32

ii. Incised wound 2”x ½ “x muscle deep present over the left side of frontal area of skull.

¶33

iii. Incised wound 3”x ½”xmuscle deep present over the exterior surface of the distal part of left forearm.

¶34

iv. Incised wound 3”x ½” x muscle deep present over the left forearm just behind injury no.3.

¶35

On dissection:

¶36

a. Left temporal bone fractured beneath the injury no. 1. Meninges and brain matter is also cut. Craneal cavity contains blood and blood clots. Left chamber of the heart empty while right chamber contained blood clots. Stomach - empty.

¶37

b. Rigor mortis was absent in upper limbs and present in lower limbs. Inference :

¶38

a. All the injuries are ante mortem in nature and caused by sharp cutting substance. Death is due to head injury particularly injury no. 1.

¶39

b. Time elapsed since death from post-mortem examination is within 24-36 hours. This P.M. report is in my pen and signature mark it as Ext.6”

¶40

We now come to the evidence of P.W.4- Susana Kujur, who is the wife of the informant. She has supported the prosecution case during trial and stated that on 22.03.2004 at around 3.00 pm when she was in the house, she heard cries of her father-in-law Vincent Kujur and when she went there, she saw the accused Ajay Kujur possessing a blood stained tangi in his hand and moving out of the room and he also threatened her. She went back towards the courtyard and he also fled away. When she saw her father-in-law, he was dead by that time. She had noticed injuries near his ear and on the left side of the hand and there was lot of blood. Her father-in-law was a retired Army Man. In her chief, she however showed ignorance as to what was the reason for occurrence. In her cross-examination, she stated that the door of the room in which her father-inlaw was living opens towards the courtyard in the north-south direction. There was no one else in the house at that time point of time. She has proved her statement made under section 164 of the Cr.PC, which has been marked as Ext.7 where she had supported the case made out in the fardbeyan of her husband, the informant (P.W.6).

¶41

P.W.5 is Peter Kujur of the same village Rudrapur. He is a hearsay witness. He saw the deceased in the evening and came to know that son of the deceased Ajay had committed murder of his father Vincent by assault with Kulhari on account of a dispute relating to pension with his father. He has proved his signature on the inquest report, which has been marked as Ext.8.

¶42

P.W.6 is Pradeep Kujur. He is the informant of the case. He has fully supported the case of the prosecution during trial. He states that he had gone towards the Nala and his field for work when wife of Rottrick came running and informed him that his father has been killed by Ajay Kujur. When he rushed to his house, he saw his dead body and lot of blood was lying in the courtyard flowing from his head. His wife Susana Kujur informed him that

¶43

¶44

Ajay Kujur had killed her father-in-law with a tangi and that she had seen Ajay fleeing away with Kulhari in his hand. This witness has also supported the reasons indicated in the fardbeyan behind the occurrence i.e. denial of pension of his father to Ajay Kujur. He further stated that the police had come on the next day and his statement was recorded. He had proved his signature on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext.9. He has also proved his signature on the statement made under section 164 of the Cr.PC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, which has been marked as Ext.10. He had supported his case made in the fardbeyan. During his cross-examination, he has further asserted in reply that his father used to stay in the room which did not have a door. There was a door at the end of the courtyard. His father was sitting on the bench in the courtyard where he was killed. He was told that the assault was made by the sharp edged part of Kulhari. He has truthfully stated that he had not seen the occurrence, but had seen the accused fleeing away towards Nala while he was coming towards field. Nala was at a distance of 500-600 yards. He further stated that other persons had also assembled there. They were plucking out paddy saplings. He had gone to the field at 8.00 am and his wife was in the house. Defence has not been able to elicit anything in his cross-examination to impeach his evidence as unreliable. Prosecution case, as made out in the fardbeyan, has been duly supported by him.

¶45

P.W.7 is Arenius Lakra, who has proved his signature on the seizure list of blood stained soil prepared before him in the village, which has been marked as Ext.11. He further states that this blood stained soil was picked up from the place where the body of the deceased was lying.

¶46

P.W.8 is Cyprion Toppo, who has proved the seizure list of blood stained tangi, which has been marked as Ext.12. This tangi was recovered pursuant to the confessional statement of the accused, as per the deposition of P.W.1. The confessional statement of the accused has been proved by P.W.10 Jems Beck, which has been marked as Ext.13.

¶47

P.W.9 Shamual Kujur has proved his signature and that of Arenius Lakra on the seizure list of blood stained soil as Ext.11 and 11/1. In his crossexamination, he has stated that this was seized in presence of other villagers also and he had inscribed his signature thereupon.

¶48

P.W.10 Jems Beck in his deposition has proved the confessional statement of the accused and also proved his signature as a witness thereupon, which has been marked as Ext.13. He has also stated that the blood stained

¶49

¶50

tangi was recovered on the basis of confessional statement of the accused Ajay Kujur from nearby Kasai Tree by the police.

¶51

From a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we find that the prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.4-Susana Kujur, wife of the informant (P.W.6) Pradeep Kujur together with the statement of P.W.8 Cyprion Topp and P.W.10 Jems Beck who has proved the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Kujur leading to recovery of blood stained tangi used as a weapon of assault for commission of the offence along with the medical evidence of P.W.3 who has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.6, all taken together lead to nail down the guilt of the accused beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt.

¶52

Learned Amicus Curiae has, while placing the evidence on record, as minutely analysed by us, hereinabove, laboured hard to question the findings of the learned Trial Court primarily on the ground that there is no eyewitness to the actual assault by the appellant on his father with a sharp cutting weapon like tangi. P.W.4 Susana Kujur though has been shown to be inside the house, but she has not seen the occurrence and only claims to have seen the accused fleeing away with a blood stained tangi in his hand. The informant in the first place has sourced the knowledge of the occurrence to one Rottrick Kujur who has not been examined in this case. Statement of the informant in the fardbeyan are indicative of a pre-existing dispute between three brothers relating to the land. There can be enough reason for the informant to falsely implicate his own brother for the occurrence so that he can assume ownership and possession of all landed property of his brother, the appellant herein. Apart from P.Ws-4 and 6, there are no other persons who claim to have direct access to the actual occurrence, rather their testimony shows that they had heard what Susana Kujur (P.W.4) had stated. The father of the appellant and the informant was 85 years old and retired from Army long back. Therefore, at that point of time, no extreme provocation is shown by the prosecution to substantiate the allegation that the appellant killed his father on account of a dispute relating to claim of pension from him. It is quite possible that the appellant has been falsely implicated while the real culprit has been allowed to go scot free. Investigation has not been conducted on proper lines. The learned Trial Court has been carried away with the flimsy evidence brought on record by the prosecution to hold the appellant guilty for the charge of murder. Therefore, the impugned judgment deserves to be interfered in appeal upon proper appreciation of the evidence.

¶53

¶54

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has taken pains to convince us that the prosecution case is full proof if material evidence is read in entirety. The accused has not been able to say anything in his defence, nor been able to discredit the evidence of vital prosecution witnesses. Presence of P.W.4 in the house at 3.00 pm on 22.03.2004 has not been doubted and the death of the father of the appellant and the informant, conduct of the accused in trying to flee away from the place of occurrence and his arrest thereafter by the police; his confessional statement duly proved by P.W.10 Jems Beck leading to recovery of the weapon of assault ‘tangi’ from near a Kasai Tree, a admissible evidence under section 27 of the Evidence Act, all duly establish the case of the prosecution beyond shadow of all reasonable doubt. Therefore, the findings of conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court do not deserve any interference as they are sound and well considered.

¶55

We have considered the submission of learned Amicus Curiae and learned Additional Public Prosecutor; gone through the entire materials on record including the fardbeyan; framing of the charge; evidence of ten prosecution witnesses; thirteen prosecution exhibits; statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC, as discussed in depth in foregoing paragraphs and also scrutinized the findings of learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment and order of sentence. On the basis of the analysis of the evidence on record, we are fully satisfied that the appellant with a background of motive has inflicted injuries on the vital parts on the body of his father, 85 years old person, which as per the medical evidence of P.W.3 and post-mortem report (Ext.6) were found to be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Case of the prosecution squarely comes within the definition of murder under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Firstly- the injuries on the body of the deceased have been proved; secondly- nature of the injury are also proved; thirdly intention of the accused to cause such injury are also proved and the accused has not been able to make out his case under any exception or that injury was unintentional. Therefore, the three ingredient of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code has also been established. Fourth ingredients under section 300 of Indian Penal Code is inferential. Based on the above three findings, it can be safely recorded that the accused intended to inflict injury and injuries were such that they were likely to cause death in the ordinary circumstances. All the four ingredients of section 300 thirdly of the Indian Penal Code therefore stand proved beyond any iota of doubt. [See: AIR 1958 SC 465 (Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab) followed in (2007) 15 SCC 327 (Sellappan vs. State of Tamil Nadu)]. As such, we have no

¶56

¶57

reason to differ with the findings of the learned Trial Court. As such, the impugned conviction and order of sentence is upheld. Appeal is dismissed as it is without any merit or substance. Let lower court records be sent down to the concerned Court forthwith along with a copy of this judgment. 14. Before parting, we consider it proper to record our appreciation to the able assistance rendered by the learned Amicus Curiae during hearing of this case. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee shall bear her admissible legal remuneration on production of a certified copy of the judgment along with an application within a period of four weeks from the date of its receipt.

¶58

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J)

¶59

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J)

¶60

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 1^st April 2019 Ranjeet/

Ajay Kujur v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kujur v. the 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

Paritosh Mahto Alias Pappu Vs State of Jharkhand

Jatru Oraon Vs State of Bihar

Lumbey Murmu Alias Lumbey Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Mahto Alias Ram Lakhan Mahto Vs State of Bihar

Mecho Alda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Lakhan Hansda Vs the State of Jharkhand