Parmeshwar Turi Vs State of Jharkhand

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Against the Judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2011, passed by learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in Sessions Trial No.282 of 2004).

¶3

Cr. Appeal (DB) No.558 of 2011

¶4

1.Ballu Turi, S/o Late Gulabiya Turi

¶5

2.Shanichar Turi @ Shanichara Turi, S/o Phulchand Turi 3.Guddu Turi, S/o Late Satuna Turi

¶6

4.Rukum Turi, S/o Late Satuna Turi 5.Karua Turi, S/o Late Hema Turi…. Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Jharkhand.

¶9

….. Respondent

¶10

With Cr. Appeal (DB) No.590 of 2011

¶11

Parmeshwar Turi, S/o Late Shri Bhodar Turi Appellant

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State of Jharkhand.

¶14

Respondent

¶15

P R E S E N T

¶16

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶17

For the Appellants : Mr. Sumir Prasad, Advocate Mr. Avishek Chandra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, APP

¶18

By Court:- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

¶19

1. Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.282 of 2004, therefore both are being heard together and shall be disposed of by the common judgment .

¶20

2. Appellants are aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction dated 09.08.2011 and order of sentence dated 23.08.2011, passed by learned 2^nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, whereby and where under they have been found guilty for the offence under Sections 302 /201/ 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for life under Section 302/34 IPC, RI for three years under Section 201/34 IPC and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for nine months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

¶21

3. As per the fardbeyan of informant (Sushila Devi) recorded on 21.01.2004 at 11.30 am that there was land dispute between the appellants and the informant

¶22

1

¶23

case was pending in the Court. Her husband (Manoj Turi) had got two trucks of brick unloaded on the disputed land for construction of boundary wall. This was objected to by the accused persons and they had threatened with dire consequences.

¶24

4. On 19.01.2004 at 4 pm, the accused persons told the husband of informant to come with papers of land for compromise. The husband (deceased) went there, but did not return home. When informant sent her nephew to inquire about him, then the accused persons told that her husband was not there and the nephew returned home. Informant along with her Gotani (Lalo Devi) went to search for him and in the way, some ladies informed her about the dead-body lying on the railway line near Village- Sirka. Then both of them went to the Railway line where they found the corpus of the deceased. It is further alleged that deceased was murdered by sharp cutting weapon.

¶25

5. On the basis of the aforesaid ' fardbeyan ' of the informant, Police instituted First Information Report being Mandu P.S. Case No. 25 of 2004 under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the eight accused persons.

¶26

6. After investigation, the Police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 302/ 201/ 34 IPC and cognizance was taken as well as charge was framed and the accused persons were put on trial.

¶27

7. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined altogether seven witnesses and the post-mortem report has been exhibited as Exhibit-1.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no cogent and legal evidence to implicate these appellants. He submits that even the evidence of last seen is also not applicable so far these appellants are concerned as from the evidence of the witnesses, it is clear that though these appellants had taken the deceased with them in a meeting to resolve their land dispute, but when the wife of the deceased later on went to the meeting place, they had seen these appellants present there along with others and they were busy in the meeting.

¶29

There were other persons in the meeting also and thus, it cannot be said that the appellants were last seen only with the deceased. So far as recovery of incriminating material i.e. axe and other weapon(s) are concerned, he submits that admittedly the I.O. has not been examined to prove the fact of recovery nor the seizure list has been exhibited.

¶30

He further submits that from the evidence of the Doctor (P.W.5), it is evident that the deceased died due to injury on the neck caused by running over of heavy

¶31

2

¶32

hard and blunt substances. The dead-body was found on the railway track. This is a case of railway accident, as such, on these grounds he prays for acquittal of the appellants. .

¶33

Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that there are several injuries found on the body of the deceased and the same is evident from the Post Mortem Report. It is submitted that, there was land dispute between these appellants and the deceased and appellants had taken the deceased for attending meeting to resolve the dispute, from where he never returned.

¶34

¶35

When the witnesses went to the house of the appellant(s) to inquire about the whereabouts of the deceased, he stated that in the last night they dropped the deceased to his house, but this fact is absolutely incorrect as the deceased never returned.

¶36

ANALYSIS

¶37

As per F.I.R., there was land dispute between deceased and the appellants and the dispute was continued for 8 to 10 years and litigation was pending before the Court. Deceased was trying to put up fence, the accused persons objected and threatened him of dire consequences. On 19.01.2004, the accused persons came to the house of the informant and requested the husband of the informant i.e. the deceased to visit Village- Bandhatarh along with the papers to settle and compromise the dispute. The husband (deceased) along with the papers went there. After an hour, the informant also went to the place in search of her husband and found her husband in the village sitting with the appellants. When she asked her husband to return, then these appellants said that the meeting is going on and after end of the meeting, he will be dropped to his home.

¶38

The deceased did not return at night. The informant sent her nephew to the Village Bandhatarh to call her husband but he did not find him and returned home. Thereafter, the informant along with her sister-in-law proceeded in search of her husband, where when two ladies, who were picking coal informed that dead body is lying on the Railway Track. The informant went there and saw the dead body of her husband and his head was severed by sharp cutting weapon. She states that her husband was murdered by these appellants and body was thrown on the Railway Track.

¶39

3

¶40

We have gone through the evidence of all the witnesses. Admittedly there is no eye witness in this case. None had seen the appellant(s) committing the murder of the deceased. Testimony of the informant (P.W. 4) cannot be said to be that of last seen, because after the deceased left home with the accused persons, in the evening she had gone to inquire about him, when it was informed that the meeting was in progress. The appellants assured that her husband will return after the meeting is over. As her husband did not return on the next date, her nephew was sent in search of the deceased, but her husband was not found there. As per the informant, the nephew, Binod Turi, on the next day went to the house of these appellants, they stated that on the last night the deceased had already left for his house. Surprisingly, this fact has not been corroborated as Binod Turi has not been produced as a witness in this case.

¶41

So far as recovery of the weapon(s) is concerned, i.e. axe, we find that the fact of such recovery has not been said by any seizure list witness as none of the seizure list witness has been examined by prosecution. Even from the records, we find that seizure list has also not been exhibited. Disclosure statement has also not been brought on record.

¶42

So far medical evidence is concerned, we find that the Doctor has been examined as P.W.5, who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased and proved the PM Report (Ext-1). He had stated that he had found the following external injuries on the person of the deceased :-

¶43

(i) Head decapitated at the level of fourth servical vertibra, margins lacerated blackish and grizzle marked on both head and neck portions;

¶44

(ii) Bruise ¾” x ½” over left eye brow;

¶45

(iii) Bruise ½” x ¼ ” on left side of forehead;

¶46

(iv) Abrasion 1”x1” over chin;

¶47

(v) Bruise ½ ” x ¼ ” below left eye on outer side;

¶48

(vi) Bruise 4”x 1” over back;

¶49

(vii) Palms and sole smeared with black coal dust.

¶50

Autopsy surgeon opined that injuries were ante-mortem in nature and death was due to haemorrhage and shock and due to injury over the neck caused by running over of the heavy hard and blunt substances. In cross-examination he stated that these injuries may be possible by railways iron wheel.

¶51

In this case, the investigating officer has not been examined and non-examination of the I.O. is fatal as the seizure has not been proved nor the disclosure statement has been brought on record. The seized material was also not produced before

¶52

4

¶53

the Court. Another fact which was important and which would have been one of the circumstances is that the location of the place of occurrence i.e. the railway line and its distance from house of the deceased and also from the place where the meeting was going on and proximity also could not be ascertained.

¶54

In order to prove the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence law is settled that the chain of circumstances should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. Here the chain of circumstance has not been proved from which an inference of guilt of the appellants can be drawn. Since the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, appellants are given benefit of doubt and the Judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Court below is set aside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶55

Since the appellants are on bail, their sureties stand discharged from the liability of their bail bonds.

¶56

Both the aforesaid Criminal Appeals are allowed.

¶57

Let L.C.R. along with a copy of this judgment be sent to the court concerned at once.

¶58

(Ananda Sen, J.)

¶59

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.)

¶60

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated 06.08.2024.